Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended, and that the Bill he now read the Third time.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That there be laid before the House a Return containing an Epitome of the Reports from the Northern Ireland Committees of Public Accounts 1947 to 1971, and of the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance Memoranda thereon, with an index for the period 1923 to 1971 relating to the Accounts for the years 1921–22 to 1969–70.—[Mr. Joel Barnett.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Palestine

Dr. M. S. Miller: asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the discussions to achieve a just solution of the Palestinian problem; and what steps have been taken to involve the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The European Council decided that the Ten's efforts should be pursued energetically and without respite. We are considering the next steps carefully and shall continue to do our best to make a genuine contribution to peace. We keep in close touch with Jordan, and I had talks with the King and several of his Ministers over the weekend. Jordan has a key role to play in a settlement, but the Jordanians are clear that the Palestinians and their representatives cannot be bypassed if lasting peace is to be achieved.

Dr. Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, to which I cannot take great exception. But does he not agree that, as Jordan has such a key role to play, it would be advisable to bring it into the peace negotiation process, along with Israel and elements of the Palestinian Arabs who may renounce their avowed intention to destroy Israel? Does he not think that if that kind of tripartite organisation were got going there could be a just and lasting peace in the area?

Mr. Hurd: I have much sympathy with the way that the hon. Gentleman puts that point. It is precisely because

it is necessary to broaden the existing discussions to include some, if not all, of those whom he mentions that we Europeans have been active in trying to create a framework in which that could happen.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it not time for the Government to admit that the built-in contradictions in the Venice declaration, as long as it exists, disable this country from making any contribution to peace in the Middle East?

Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. The further we move from the Venice declaration the more clearly we see that the principles laid down in that declaration, taken together, must provide the basis for any comprehensive settlement, and that without such a settlement we shall continue to see the flare-ups now being experienced.

Mr. Walters: My hon. Friend has rightly condemned the savage bombing attack on Beirut. Does he agree that Mr. Begin's irresponsible and brutal warmongering must be deterred by more than condemnation, and what steps has he in mind?

Mr. Hurd: We certainly believe, and have often said, that several parts of current Israeli policy, including that in Lebanon, need to be changed if there is to be lasting peace. We have also said that the PLO's policy and its reliance on acts of violence will not achieve its objective of the recognition of Palestinian rights.

Mr. Moyle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as long as the Government tell Mr. Begin that he will not improve the long-term chances of Israel's survival by blasting Beirut whenever he feels like it and tell the PLO that the chances of improving its status in the international community will not be improved by shelling Kiryat Shimonah whenever it feels like it, they will have the support of the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for that support. That is exactly our position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the House on this question, and then I hope that we shall move more quickly.

Mr. Latham: As it was Britain which set up the Kingdom of Jordan, do we still recognise Jordan's claims over the West Bank, which we and Pakistan were the only nations to do originally?

Mr. Hurd: Jordan has no claims over the West Bank. Since 1974 it has accepted the PLO as the spokesman of the Palestinian people.

Mr. Faulds: Has not King Hussein made it quite clear—I am sure that this point has been made to the hon. Gentleman, as it has been to me in private conversations with the King—[Interruption.] Some of us occasionally move in more rarefied circles than this Chamber. Is it not a fact that King Hussein has absolutely no intention of becoming involved in the Camp David process? Is it not also a fact that the increasing idiocies of the totally irresponsible maniac who is the present Prime Minister of Israel mean that eventually the moderate leadership of the Palestinians will be displaced and taken over by less responsible elements, and then there will be no hope of peace?

Mr. Hurd: I do not honestly think that the hon. Gentleman's adjectives are very helpful, but it is true that the Jordanian Government will not become involved in the present Camp David process. That is why, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) helpfully suggested, we need to find a way of going beyond it.

Madrid Review Conference

Mr. Sproat: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the Madrid review conference.

Mr. Hurd: It has been our strong hope that the outstanding issues of human rights and military security could be resolved before the end of July. The meeting in Madrid has now reached a critical phase in the negotiations on a mandate for the conference on disarmament in Europe. If this issue can be resolved it should open the way to agreement on the substantial and balanced final document which we are seeking.

Mr. Sproat: Is it not a fact that while the Madrid talks have been dragging on during the past months the Soviet authorities have continued to jam broadcasts to the Soviet Union by the BBC and by other Western countries, that they have still not made Western newspapers and magazines available in the Soviet Union, as they promised to do, and that they are cracking down even more ruthlessly on their own dissidents and cutting back even more drastically on would-be emigrants? What new proposals do the Government and their allies have to make the Soviet Union stick more closely in future to the pledges that it made freely at Helsinki?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Soviet record on implementation is extremely disappointing. That is why we spent so much time at the Madrid conference in reviewing and in pointing up the facts to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. The question is whether it is better to forgo the whole process because it has been disappointing, or—as we are trying to do—to try to put together a new and balanced document which will enable us to keep up the pressure.

Central America

Mr. Radice: asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent discussions have been held with the United States Government on the co-ordination of policy towards Central America.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Although we discuss Central America regularly with the United States Government, there is no co-ordination of policy.

Mr. Radice: But is it not time that the Government dissociated themselves from the American Administration's support for the regime in El Salvador, particularly when 60 civilians are being killed every day, mostly by the security and paramilitary forces? Should not the Government display a more friendly attitude towards Nicaragua, and would it not encourage a more independent view by the Government if they opened embassies in both El Salvador and Nicaragua?

Mr. Ridley: We believe that everyone should encourage the holding of elections in El Salvador in March 1982, which is President Duarte's present plan. It is

disappointing that the guerrillas have apparently been burning town halls to destroy the electoral registers, but we still believe that those elections are the best solution to the problem in that country.
The hon. Gentleman asked about opening embassies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. In the latter case, we still judge it not to be safe, and in the former case we do not have sufficient funds.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress of discussions about the constitutional future of Belize, and can he say how those discussions are progressing?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, Sir. The constitution will be available shortly. The draft constitution is available now, if my hon. Friend would care to see it. We had further discussions this morning with the Premier of Belize, who is in London, and further announcements will be made at the weekend about the progress towards independence.

Mr. Newens: Does the Minister agree that the Somoza family, which for many years enjoyed the full support of the United States of America, was responsible for frustrating any opportunity of holding free elections in Nicaragua? As the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about free elections, does he not consider that, now that the Somoza regime has gone, we ought to provide more support for the new Government? Will he reconsider the question of aid? Will he also reconsider opening an embassy in Nicaragua, particularly since the Nicaraguans propose to send a full-time ambassador to London?

Mr. Ridley: In the light of the accent that the hon. Gentleman puts upon free elections, I hope that he will join me in urging free elections upon both sides in El Salvador. Perhaps he would also use his considerable weight with the junta in Nicaragua to urge that they hold free elections, too.

Namibia

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in discussions on the future of Namibia.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): The Foreign Ministers of the Five discussed the results of the visit of the United States Deputy-Secretary of State, Mr. Clark, to Southern Africa, and considered measures to strengthen the existing United Nations plan when they met in Ottawa on 20 and 21 July. I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the communiqué issued after the meeting.

Mr. Hughes: As I have not yet had an opportunity to see the communiqué, can the Minister tell us that serious action will be taken to compel South Africa to reach real agreement on the transfer of power in Namibia? Is he aware that the continued delay in achieving such a settlement passes the initiative to South Africa, confirms South African intransigence and makes a peaceful international settlement that much more difficult to achieve?

Mr. Luce: As the hon. Gentleman will be able to see when he reads the communiqué, the five Foreign Ministers agreed that they must pursue as vigorously as possible proposals to strengthen the United Nations plan. There


will be a further meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Five in September and a meeting next week of the contact group with a 'view to developing positive proposals.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I understand the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), but does not my hon. Friend agree that considerable progress has been made in Namibia, that apartheid—that is, separate development—has been abolished by law in Namibia, and that to continue, therefore, to put pressure on Namibia and South Africa, when tremendous progress is being made towards introducing a democratic system, is counter-productive to the best interests of all the Namibians and, not least, of the Western world as well?

Mr. Luce: Any positive progress that is made in the way that my hon. Friend has described is helpful to the situation. At the same time, I am sure that he will agree that it is in everyone's interests to achieve a positive international agreement that has the support of all the parties concerned.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister stop misusing language in describing the latest proposals as a strengthening of the United Nations plan when in practice they mean a weakening of the United Nations resolutions? Is it not a fact that there is no will or initiative, especially on the part of the American Government, to apply those resolutions, and that the longer the implementation of those resolutions is delayed the less likely it becomes that there will be a peaceful solution in Namibia and Southern Africa?

Mr. Luce: I am surprised by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached the matter, since he does not know what proposals are being developed and whether they strengthen the plan.

Mr. Davies: Tell us.

Mr. Luce: That is precisely what is being worked on at present by the Foreign Ministers of the Five.

British Broadcasting Corporation (External Services)

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many representations he has received about cuts in the external services of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and what assessment has been made of the effect of their withdrawal upon British interests.

Mr. Ridley: There are to be no cuts in the finances of the BBC external services.
By yesterday my right hon. Friends and I had received 246 representations. Most of them misunderstood the position. Our assessment of the effect of our policies is that the external services will become much more audible in most parts of the world.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gather that the phrase is a terminological inexactitude. Did the Minister's reply relate to the fact that there are going to be cuts in the BBC's external services?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a bit far.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Taking national broadcasting as a whole, and the additional resources to be given to local radio, for example, cannot means be found to

maintain all useful services without throwing a burden on the public purse? Can we not do much better in presenting the truth about Northern Ireland in Europe as well as in North America?

Mr. Ridley: I think that my hon. Friend has made a useful suggestion. I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about his views on that matter.
With regard to Northern Ireland, we are doing our utmost to ensure that the facts of the British position and of British policy are made available throughout the world by the many means at our disposal.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is not the Minister of State now using the same kind of double-speak that he used when he said that there were not to be any cuts in the BBC's external services? Has he not read the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which points out that £750,000 was spent on the VIP suites at Heathrow and Gatwick? Would not it be better if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cut out these wasteful frills, both at home and abroad, instead of decimating the BBC's external services?

Mr. Ridley: The Select Committee came to the conclusion
that the capital programme has been cut too often and by too much and that the time has now come to spend more money on it.
We are doing precisely that. Two of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have already this afternoon urged me to open an embassy in Managua, so, far from advocating economies in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the Opposition are advocating expenditure.

Mr. Durant: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread anxiety about this subject? Will he again make absolutely clear the Government's position on the matter? I find myself slightly confused by his answer.

Mr. Ridley: I agree that there has been widespread concern, and I would welcome an opportunity to give the full facts and figures to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give them. "] In summary, a capital programme amounting at present prices to £102 million has been authorised to make the BBC overseas services audible in all parts of the world by the end of the decade. That is a large increase. The BBC has been asked to find savings of only about £23 million over the period towards that capital cost of £102 million.

Mr. Jay: If nearly everyone concerned misunderstands the Government's proposals must not the Government have done rather badly in explaining them?

Mr. Ridley: If I may suggest a thought to the right hon. Gentleman, the Government give full editorial freedom to the BBC, and the Government do not control the media.

Mr. Andrew Pyke

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Lord Privy Seal if any charges have been preferred against Mr. Andrew Pyke, a British citizen detained in Iran since August 1980; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: The Iranian authorities said first that Mr. Pyke was charged with espionage. They have since dropped this and substituted charges concerning the commercial activities of the Dutch-Iranian firm which employed Mr. Pyke in Iran. We remain very concerned at


his detention for almost 11 months, and we continue to do all we can on his behalf. In particular, we have pressed the Iranians to clarify further the charges against him and to indicate when his case might be resolved.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation regarding Mr. Pyke remains most unsatisfactory and that it is giving rise to deep concern among his family, who are worried about the sporadic consular access being granted to him? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will in no way forget the welfare of Mr. Pyke and that they will take all possible steps, by whatever means necessary, to establish the exact nature of the allegations being made against Mr. Pyke so that he may prepare his defence, as we would allow any foreigner detained in this country to do?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I give that assurance. It is something that charges of espionage have been dropped, but it is certainly not enough. On the question of regular consular visits, particularly, the situation leaves much to be desired.

Mr. Newens: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who were in the past extremely critical of the regime of the Shah are now very disturbed at the lack of justice shown in recent decisions made in Iran? We are deeply concerned and would therefore wish strongly to add our voices to the concern being expressed about Mr. Pyke. We hope that the Government will do everything possible in this respect.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's evenhanded support.

Mr. David Atkinson: What representations have been made at the current Helsinki review conference discussions in Madrid on the fate of the Siberian Seven—the two Russian Christian families who have spent the last three years in asylum in the American embassy in Moscow? Will my hon. Friend now initiate discussions beween the two sides to ensure—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementary question must relate to Mr. Andrew Pyke. The hon. Gentleman may do better next time.

Gibraltar (Chief Minister)

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Lord Privy Seal what subjects were discussed with Sir Joshua Hassan, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, on 7 July; and what was the outcome of the meeting.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): The Chief Minister and I exchanged views on a number of matters. Chief among them were the implications for Gibraltar of the defence programme.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. During his discussions with Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, did he by any chance discuss the question of the embarkation of the Royal couple from Gibraltar after the Royal Wedding? If so, has his attention been drawn to newspaper articles in which it is stated that the King of Spain and his family will not now attend the Royal Wedding because of that embarkation? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no changing of the instructions that have been issued about the Royal couple leaving Gibraltar on the first part of their honeymoon?

Sir Ian Gilmour: No, that matter did not arise in my conversation with the Chief Minister. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. We are talking about the honeymoon of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer. It is their honeymoon and nobody else's and it is not for anybody else to interfere with it.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Did the Spanish Foreign Minister, when he met the Foreign Secretary, give any indication that this advice would be tendered to the King of Spain? Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that many of us find it incomprehensible that a democratic Government should take that attitude—so far as one can see, they are worse than Franco—despite the clear and well known views of the Gibraltarians?

Sir Ian Gilmour: No, that matter was not raised when my noble Friend and I saw the Spanish Foreign Minister in Brussels, although subsequently there have been exchanges between the Governments. We all know that the Spanish Government have peculiarly difficult problems and are bound to be sensitive about matters concerning Gibraltar. But the House knows that we have bent over backwards to assist the Spanish Government, and it is worth reminding the House that if the Lisbon agreement had been implemented, as we have long been urging, the difficulties would not have arisen.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while it may be true that the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer are perfectly entitled to be married in Gibraltar cathedral if they so please, it is unhelpful, to say the least—

Mr. McQuarrie: Rubbish.

Mr. Garel-Jones: —and would not he agree—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Declare your interest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to ask his question.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, rather than looking for fault on either side, it would be more helpful simply to confirm that the British Government's relations with Spain will remain unimpaired by this regrettable incident, and to state that we shall continue to support its application for membership of both NATO and the European Economic Community?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we, at least, wish to keep a sense of proportion in the matter. Therefore, it should not be blown up into a major diplomatic incident. Of course, the exchanges between the two Royal Families are entirely private and not a matter for me or the House to comment on. But, as I said, it seems surprising to me that the Spanish Government should have made an issue out of a private visit at a time when we have been trying to improve relations between the two countries.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is not this latest Spanish farce further evidence of the run-around that the Spanish authorities have given the Lord Privy Seal and the Foreign Office over the past 12 months? Will the right hon. Gentleman now clearly say that there will be no further progress of any kind on the Spanish application to join the Common Market until the Lisbon agreement of last year is honoured and ratified?

Sir Ian Gilmour: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman, as the senior Opposition spokesman on


foreign affairs, is meant to improve, not spoil, relations between countries. To talk about a Spanish farce is unhelpful and silly. As the right hon. Gentleman and the House know, we have been urging the implementation of the Lisbon agreement for many months, and, as I said, this difference would not have arisen had the Spanish authorities carried out that agreement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side.

Sir Bernard Braine: Can it be made clear to the Spanish authorities that the British people, who genuinely want good relations with a democratic Spain, are disappointed and, indeed, surprised that the Spanish Government should adopt the same bullying tactics in regard to Gibraltar as did the late Fascist dictatorship? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to make it clear once again that under international treaty Gibraltar is British, that its people are British and wish to remain so, and that it does not lie in the mouth of any foreign authority to say that a member of the British Royal Family, a Member of the British Parliament or anyone else cannot set foot in Gibraltar?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I think that I have already made it clear that the arrangements for the honeymoon of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer are a matter for them and this country, and for nobody else. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pity that the restrictions on movement between Spain and Gibraltar were not removed immediately the democratic regime came to power. Nevertheless, as I said, I do not believe that we should blow up this incident into a major conflagration between our two countries.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was putting his question a number of hon. Members were shouting "Declare your interest." I have no knowledge whether the hon. Member has an interest, but is not the situation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman at once. At Question Time, if an hon. Member has an interest he is not required to declare it.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that if Conservative Members had voted as the Opposition did on the British Nationality Bill and the matter of Gibraltarian citizens, many of their protests would have had greater force than they have at present? Is he further aware that at the time of negotiations over the Lisbon agreement and the entry of Spain into the EEC and NATO, it shows a peculiar degree of insensitivity to state that this happy event is a purely private affair when the Heir to the Throne will be visiting a place about which there is contention between two countries of Western Europe, and that the couple would have been better advised to board the Royal yacht at a place such as Jersey, Sark or Alderney than to raise this problem?

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Sir Ian Gilmour: First, the imputations against my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) are, of course, unjustified. Secondly, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Apart from anything else, if one intends to cruise in the Mediterranean, Jersey is not the

best place at which to embark. Thirdly, I do not think that the British Nationality Bill would have affected the matter, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter entirely for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Later—

Mr. Garel-Jones: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but you will be aware that throughout my question to the Lord Privy Seal my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) shouted "Declare your interest". I therefore feel that I should say to the House that I have no personal financial interest either in Gibraltar or in Spain, but it is well known to the House both that my wife is Spanish and that my family have lived in Spain for over 30 years, and to that extent I have an indirect interest. I hoped that particularly my hon. Friends would have been prepared to listen to a point of view which, although they did not share it, was backed with at least some experience and knowledge of that country.

Mr. Speaker: There is a lesson for the whole House in that point of order, because it is unfortunate when personal innuendoes are made.

Middle East

Mr. Latham: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the intended progress of the European Economic Community diplomatic initiative over the Middle East; and what steps he is taking to co-ordinate any action with the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I cannot predict what form European efforts will take, but we shall continue to seek general acceptance of the Venice principles which we and the other members of the Ten believe represent a just basis for lasting peace. The European Council statement of 1 July makes it clear that the Ten will consult the United States. My right hon. and noble Friend held talks with Mr. Haig on 17 July, and our contacts will continue.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the aim of bringing a settlement to the Middle East must be pursued jointly by the Western Powers under willing American leadership? Would it now be helpful if Mr. Haig, Mr. Gromyko and Lord Carrington, in his EEC role, met to see whether they could broaden the Habib mission?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree with my hon. Friend that the search for peace in the Middle East has to be shared by all the Western Powers and by the United States and Europe in particular. My right hon. and noble Friend will certainly consider my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion.

Mr. Hooley: Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that if the Western Powers supinely allow Israel indiscriminately to attack any State in that part of the world, they are undermining the possible effectiveness of the United Nations as a peace-keeping or law-making organisation? Is it not high time that they threw their authority and weight behind the United Nations peace-keeping force in the Lebanon and made that force effective, as they are perfectly able to do?

Sir Ian Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given our full support to the United Nations force in the Lebanon. We have also made our views on the recent violence perfectly clear to the Israeli Government both on


behalf of ourselves and on behalf of the Ten. Our representative to the United Nations, in a debate there yesterday, said:
My Government deplores resort to armed action. We have frequently criticised PLO violence, but the scale of recent Israeli actions and the resulting deaths, particularly civilian casualties, can in no way be justified".

Sir Frederick Bennett: Reverting to the European peace initiative as far as it has gone, can my right hon. Friend make a simple statement on the question whether Israel at least accepts that the Palestinians have a right to a homeland of their own, or does he believe that Mr. Begin's view is that the West Bank is an intrinsic part of Israel?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I cannot say what the whole Israeli view is, but, as my hon. Friend hinted, Mr. Begin, in Washington immediately after Camp David, said that he would see that Israeli soveriegnty over the West Bank was preserved, and during his election campaign he said that while he was Prime Minister no part of the Israeli-occupied territories would be given back.

Mr. Moyle: Surely the right hon. Gentleman regards his answer to that question as totally inadequate. Is he aware that the Government allowed a tremendous sense of anticipation to build up in this country and in the Middle East about what they would do to develop the European initiative when Britain took over the Presidency of the EEC? If he intends to do no more than he said, does he not realise that there will be a tremendous sense of anticlimax in the Middle East which will add to the instability in the area?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not think that that is a very well considered question. We have occupied the Presidency for about three weeks, the Israeli Government is still being formed, and there is a great deal of violence in the Lebanon. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is the moment to produce a cut and dried plan to settle the problems of the Middle East, he knows very little about foreign affairs.

Uganda (Military Assistance)

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Lord Privy Seal, pursuant to the reply of the Under-Secretary given to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West on 2 July, what further consideration he has given to the request by the Ugandan Government for British military assistance.

Mr. Luce: A military appraisal of the training requirements of the Ugandan Army has now been completed. This is being studied, and the implications of assistance from the United Kingdom are being assessed.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. May I urge him to proceed with great caution, bearing in mind the controversial election result in Uganda and the need to ensure that British military assistance does not go to any Government who do not have the full-hearted support of their people.

Mr. Luce: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall procced with caution; but, as one who knows that part of the world very well, I am sure that he will agree that after a decade of tyranny and anarchy in that country, our primary consideration, with other friends of Uganda, must

be to do what we can, in however modest a fashion, to help those people achieve political reconciliation and economic recovery.

British Broadcasting Corporation (World Service)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: asked the Lord Privy Seal what study he has given to the development of the technology of direct international television transmissions by satellite and its implications for the British Broadcasting Corporation world service.

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently published a report of the study on direct broadcasting by satellite for the United Kingdom. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office contributed to the preparation of the report. Comments on the report have been invited by the end of this month. It would be premature to conduct a detailed study of the implications for the British Broadcasting Corporation's world service in advance.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Has my hon. Friend appreciated the advantages for the British electronics industry if it were seen to be among the first in the field of satellite television? Would he also consider the advantages if the existing BBC language services were extended to other cultural and also to technological subjects, and that the cost of that might be shared with European Community countries as part of their joint contribution to the Lomé convention?

Mr. Ridley: The BBC external services are already using satellites to relay short-wave transmissions, but expansion into television would raise major financial and constitutional issues and would depend on the BBC's general response to direct broadcasting by satellite. In addition, it would be difficult to collect the licence fees from overseas residents.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Ministerial Council Meetings

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Lord Privy Seal what Ministerial Council meetings of the European Economic Community are planned over the next three months.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I shall arrange for the information to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there has been a deputation from the Sheffield city council to the Department of Industry today to express its concern about the level of EEC grants to Sheffield and to South Yorkshire? Will he also bear in mind the concern about the level of steel imports and about the cost of energy to the steel industry in Sheffield? Will the Ministers of Industry and Energy be meeting in the next three months to discuss these issues?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I shall certainly give my hon. Friend the answer to the first two parts of his question. The House is aware of the difficulties that industries such as steel are under because of international energy prices. My hon. Friend will know that the Chancellor made possible some relief in the Budget, and subsequent action has been taken. I shall bring my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. MacNamara: When shall we have a meeting of the Fishery Ministers at the Ministerial Council? Is it hoped that some sort of agreement will be reached which will allow a deep-sea and middle-water British fleet rather than just an inshore fleet? Or are we to wait until those fleets completely disappear and the French take over all our waters?

Sir Ian Gilmour: No, there is no question of that. Certainly there will be a Fisheries Council in September, and we hope that progress will be made. But, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as a result of the change of Government in France there has necessarily been some delay.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the problems of the Middle East will be a priority on the list of matters to be discussed at a future Council meeting? Does he agree that Jordan will inevitably play a vital part in any settlement of the Middle East problem and that the present interpretation by Israel of the autonomy of the occupied territories and the expansion of the settlements in those occupied territories does not help Jordan, which is keen on peace, to participate fully in what is a vital initiative for the peace of the world, let alone the peace of the Middle East?

Sir Ian Gilmour: Certainly the Middle East will figure largely at future Foreign Ministers Council meetings. I agree with my hon. Friend that obviously Jordan will play an important part. As my hon. Friend knows, we have made plain our views on Israeli settlements. We regard them as illegal and as obstacles to peace.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What is the point of further discussions on fisheries when German trawlers, with the full approval of the German Government, are fishing in British waters banned to our own fishermen? What urgent action are the Government taking?

Sir Ian Gilmour: That is not going on now. It did happen, the boats were arrested, and the catch confiscated.

Following is the information:
Between now and 22 October the Council will, on present plans, meet in various formations on the following dates:

(a) the General Affairs Council (Foreign Ministers) will meet on 14–15 September;
(b) the Agriculture Council will meet on 28 September and on 19–20 October;
(c) the Fisheries Council will meet on 29, and possibly 30 September;
(d) the Budget Council wilt meet on 23 July;
(e) the ECOFIN Council (Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs) will meet on 17 September and on 19 October;
(f) the Energy Council will meet on 22 September;
(g) the Environment Council will meet on 29 September.

In addition there will be a number of informal meetings of European Community Ministers during this period: Foreign Ministers on 5–6 September; Agriculture Ministers on 5–7 October; and Employment Ministers on 24–25 September.
Foreign Ministers of the Ten will meet in political co-operation on 13 October.

British Presidency

Mr. Murphy: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will direct the United Kingdom's period of Presidency of the Council of Ministers towards seeking co-operation on major issues to the benefit of the United Kingdom.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The duty of the Presidency is to conduct the Council's business efficiently and to encourage co-operation. Among the major issues to be

considered during our Presidency is the problem of the Community's budget. At meetings on this subject, as at all Community meetings during our Presidency, our interests will be promoted by a separate United Kingdom delegation.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, during our Presidency, we should seek to gain positive benefits from our membership of the Community while seeking to reduce excessive bureaucracy and unnecessary harmonisation?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that that is a matter particularly to be pursued during our Presidency, but certainly we favour positive co-operation, no unnecessary harmonisation, arid the diminution of bureaucracy at all times.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that by far the most important issues will be the budgetary contributions and the restructuring of the budget. However, will he confirm that if no agreement is reached on the budget, in 1982 we shall be making a net contribution to the EEC budget of £1½ billion? Even if there is agreement on the proposals put forward by the Commission—and there is no certainty of that—we shall still be paying £850 million in 1982. Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm the commitment that we shall not agree to anything which leaves us not in broad balance in terms of contributions to the budget?

Sir Ian Gilmour: No, I do not agree with either of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. First, I do not wish to assume in any way that there will not be an agreement, and, if there is, I do not know whence the right hon. Gentleman gets his figures. Secondly, if there is not an agreement, then, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was part of the 30 May agreement that arrangements similar to those over the last few years should be put forward for 1982.

Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that future co-operation can only be damaged by the news that the Labour Party national executive committee is apparently now committed to taking us out of Europe within one year of any future Labour Government? Does he not find that strange, given the publicised views of previous leaders of that party? Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that, depressingly, that commitment appears to be based mainly on prejudice, intolerance and a selective use of statistics?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I certainly agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. I do not agree with the first part, because what the national executive committee did yesterday seems to be entirely in keeping with its usual behaviour and views, and I noted that both the leader and deputy leader of the party were overruled by the NEC.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Reverting to the original question, surely the Lord Privy Seal agrees that the job of the Presidency is to secure co-operation in the interests of the Community as a whole, not in the interests of the countries of those persons who occupy the Chair.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I certainly agree with that. Indeed, it is exactly what I said.

Mr. Knox: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on foreign policy co-operation in the European Economic Community since the United Kingdom assumed the Presidency.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps have been taken towards obtaining a common foreign policy in European Economic Community member States.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The Government have continued to be active in working for a common European approach to foreign policy questions since the United Kingdom assumed the Presidency at the beginning of July.
Foreign Ministers, on 13 July in Brussels, devoted part of their meeting to discussion of political co-operation matters. Ministers on that occasion looked at the Ten's proposals on Afghanistan in the light of the discussions that my right hon. and noble Friend had with the Soviet Foreign Minister about that proposal.
On 15 July my right hon. and noble Friend also attended the international conference on Cambodia where, on behalf of the Ten, he supported the proposals made by the countries of the association of South-East Asian nations.
There have been two meetings of political directors of the Ten.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Foreign Secretary's leadership so far, as President of the Council of Ministers, has greatly heartened those of us who believe that the Common Market is about bigger issues than the price of butter? Will he confirm that foreign policy co-operation will remain a high priority throughout the rest of Britain's Presidency?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. Certainly I confirm that one of the many matters on which we shall concentrate will be the improvement of political co-operation in foreign affairs.

Mr. Cryer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there will be strong resistance in the House and outside to the move towards subordinating this country at all times to a common EEC foreign policy, and that it is important that this country should be able to make a judgment on international affairs free from subordination either to the EEC or the United States of America? Will he confirm that that is the Government's view?

Sir Ian Gilmour: It is only the hon. Gentleman who introduces the word "subordination". There is no question of our subordinating our policy to anyone else. We seek to co-operate with our partners so that the voice of Europe, with its 270 million people, is heard in the world. That objective is far less likely to lead to subordination than if each country acted purely on its own. Of course we have our own foreign policy and will continue to do so.

Mr. Amery: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that substantial quantities of Soviet war materials are reaching the PLO in Lebanon today through Syria and Libya? In view of the fact that President Reagan is temporarily withholding military supplies from Israel, should not my right hon. and noble Friend, in his capacity as President of the European Council of Foreign Ministers, make urgent representations to the Soviet Union to take steps to see that Soviet war material is not fed into that area of conflagration?

Sir Ian Gilmour: No, I cannot confirm what my right hon. Friend said. We have no information that large

quantities of materials are reaching the PLO. As for the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend will realise that although President Reagan is withholding aircraft, he is continuing other arms supplies to Israel.

Mr. Home Robertson: How many more cities can the Israeli air force bomb before the nations of the European Community consider cutting off diplomatic relations with Israel?

Sir Ian Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman may have heard earlier, we deplore the bombing of Beirut and the high civilian casualties that it caused. At the same time, as was said at the Ottawa summit, we deplore all violence in the Middle East.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the stability of Turkey is vital not only to the European Community but to NATO? In that context, will he give an undertaking that during our Presidency we shall do all in our power to help Turkey not only to retain that stability but to return to a democratic form of Government?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said. The stability of Turkey is in the interests of the Community, of NATO and of the West in general. As I told the Turkish Government when I visited their country recently, we shall give them every support, and we hope that before long they will be able to return to democracy.

Mr. Moyle: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier answer on the European initiative, may I ask whether he is seriously trying to tell the House that, in envisaging our Presidency and the development of the initiative, the Government never considered that there might be violence in the Middle East when they came to power? Has not violence been endemic in Middle East politics since 1948, and will it not continue to be endemic unless a settlement is reached? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he has no plans now for developing the European initiative, he is scarcely likely to achieve anything by Christmas?

Sir Ian Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman does not achieve much by putting into my mouth words that I did not use. Of course we envisaged violence in the Middle East. As the right hon. Gentleman said, violence has been endemic there since 1948. I simply suggested that to formulate a plan without paying attention to what was happening in the area at the time would not be good politics.

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he intends to address the European Parliament during the British Presidency.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend has at present no plan to do so. My right hon. and noble Friend addressed the European Parliament on 8 July and outlined the programme for the United Kingdom Presidency.

Sir Anthony Meyer: If the Foreign Secretary addresses the European Parliament again, will he take an early opportunity to allay misgivings in Europe that the threatened British withdrawal might shake European unity by pointing out that the prospect of a Labour Government coming back to power now that the Labour Party has committed itself to withdrawal from Europe is nil? Will he tell the European Parliament that the Labour Party will


no more improve its chances by parading anti-Europeanism than by offering to strip Britain of its defences?

Mr. Hurd: I rather doubt whether my right hon. and noble Friend will find much time to deal with that aspect of matters. As Labour's plans become unveiled, the uncertainty and disruption that their implementation would cause is becoming clear. It is also becoming clear that they do not have a great deal to do with British interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They have a great deal to do with the Labour Party's desire to build a collectivist State in this country.

Mr. James Lamond: If the Foreign Secretary is to address the Common Market members again, will he bear in mind that his initiatives in Afghanistan and Kampuchea will have a much better chance of success if he tries directly to involve in the talks the Governments of those two countries?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows the two stages which the European plan suggests for Afghanistan. That seemed to us to fit the case. He also knows of the complications in respect of Kampuchea. The main task is to tackle the basic problem in both instances—namely, the withdrawal of external forces.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Since my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about British interests, does he not think that it is slightly inappropriate that, during our Presidency of the EEC Council of Ministers, we should be persuading the BBC to cut its broadcasts to Europe?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) dealt admirably with that subject.

Mr. Deakins: If the Foreign Secretary is tempted to waste his time addressing the European Assembly, will he please bear in mind that he is responsible to the House, and not to that body?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. and noble Friend made a speech at Strasbourg to which I listened. It was extremely well received as a clear and forthright statement of what was practicable during our Presidency. He did a good job that day.

Community Practices (Reform)

Mr. Moate: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the European Economic Community Foreign Ministers to be considering formal proposals for the reform of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Renton: asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions he has had with his European Community colleagues regarding the Commission's various proposals for reform of Community practices.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The Foreign Affairs Council agreed on 22 and 23 June that the Committee of Permanent Representatives should set work in hand with a view to clarifying the report which the Commission has presented in accordance with the 30 May 1980 agreement and should draw up a work programme for the Council to consider at its meeting in September. The European Council had a preliminary exchange of views on the Commission's

report on 29 and 30 June and agreed that this would be a major topic for its meeting in London in November, and that appropriate conclusions should be reached then.

Mr. Renton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that four months, which is all that will be available after the August holidays, is a very short time in Community politics, but that at the end of that time the British public will he most anxious to see that a first major step has been taken during our Presidency towards reform of Community practices, and notably towards restructuring the European budget?

Sir Ian Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's every word. As he rightly said, because of the holidays we have a short time—four and a half months. However, we expect considerable progress by the rime of the European Council at the end of November.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I revert to the previous answer given by the Lord Privy Seal on the matter when he said that if there was no agreement on budget restructuring, the formula laid down in the Council of Ministers meeting of 30 May 1980 would apply to 1982. If that formula applies, what will be our net contribution to the budget in 1982, bearing in mind that our net contribution this year is £570 million?

Sir Ian Gilmour: As the budget has not yet been formulated or passed, how can I possibly say exactly how much we shall contribute to it?

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one Community practice that it would be wise to adopt would be some form of proportional representation when we next have European elections?

Sir Ian Gilmour: That is a very controversial matter. It has been discussed in the European Parliament, but until recommendations are produced I do not wish to comment on what it may or may not decide.

Mr. Faulds: In terms of the reform of Community practices and in view of Israel's international brigandage, would it not be advisable for the EEC Foreign Ministers to consider an abrogation of the trade and financial agreements that the EEC has with Israel?

Sir Ian Gilmour: There is a danger of European questions becoming Middle Eastern questions. Of course the Middle Eastern question is of deep importance. The hon. Gentleman knows that our approach is based on the Venice declaration and the European initiative. I cannot say now that the approach that he advocates would be likely to further a settlement.

Mr. Marlow: Whatever may or may not be the policy of the Labour Party with regard to Europe, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a growing disenchantment and sense of unfairness in this country with our arrangements, and that, without major reforms, there will be a growing move within the country—whichever party is in power—to break away from the present European arrangements?

Sir Ian Gilmour: No, I do not agree. As my hon. Friend is aware, we were dissatisfied with the previous arrangement, and, unlike the previous Labour Government, we succeeded in changing it. The result was the 30 May agreement. We are now discussing the mandate that the Commission produced to prevent unacceptable circum-stances arising in future. As my hon. Friend knows, our objective is to reach conclusions on that as soon as possible.

Trade Union (Freedom of Association)

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure the right of freedom of association in relation to trade unions so as to give effect to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is directed against the closed shop, which is the arrangement in industry which requires that unless workers join a specified trade union they will not get or hold a job. I thought of calling it the Trade Union (Right to Work) Bill, because it would give a right to work in two situations in which such a right is at present removed by the closed shop. First, it would give that right to those such as Joanna Harris, the poultry inspector of Sandwell, the four tea ladies of Walsall, and the railwaymen whose case is now before the European Court of Human Rights, who have been sacked and who, in some cases, might never be allowed to work again in the only work a skilled worker might know because they would not join a union.
Secondly, the Bill would give that right to work to the employees of firms which have been threatened with extinction because the employees are not members of a union and trade unionists refuse to work with them.
I have preferred to call the Bill the Trade Union (Freedom of Association) Bill because, in sheer numerical terms, there are many more people who have not been sacked but whose fundamental freedom to associate with whom they please has been taken away by closed shop agreements, and who have been forced to be members of a union although they see no benefit in it and have no wish to join one.
Since we have all been sent to this place, whatever our political party, to protect the liberty of the individual in our constituencies whenever that liberty is threatened by the insensitivity of State machinery or by any other form of collective oppression, it is difficult to see how such a Bill, provided that it is moderate and is itself unoppressive in operation, could be opposed, save perhaps by those with vested interests in doing so.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Like lawyers.

Mr. Lawrence: Certainly, mine is no voice crying in the wilderness. There is universal and overwhelming support for further action, and that support comes from all shades of the party political spectrum.
Let us first take the Government's view, as set out in paragraph 263 of the Green Paper on trade union immunities.

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not straying dangerously near making the speech that he would make if he were allowed to bring in the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I had thought that, I would have interrupted, but I did not think so.

Mr. Lawrence: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I was putting the Government's view on the matter, as expressed in their Green Paper on trade union immunities.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is beginning to put his foot in it now. Will he be kind enough to explain why the House should give him permission to have his motion?

Mr. Lawrence: I want such a Bill because it is necessary that there should be some changes in the law. The necessity for it has been amply and much more accurately and effectively stated by the Government in their Green Paper. The Government are opposed to the principles underlying the closed shop. They say:
That people should be required to join a union as a condition of getting or holding a job runs contrary to the general traditions of personal liberty in this country. It is acceptable for a union to seek to increase its membership by voluntary means. What is objectionable, however, is to enforce membership by means of a closed shop as a condition of employment. Individual employeessshould have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to join the trade union. Closed shops and the practices they can engender damage the image of trade unionism itself. The Government believe that these views are increasingly shared not least within the trade unions themselves.
Then there is the view of the people. There can be no doubt that those who elected this Government to power wanted something to be done more effectively about the closed shop. The view was clearly reflected in an ORC poll two years ago, which showed that 85 per cent. of the general public and no fewer than 81 per cent. of trade unionists were opposed to sacking people who refused to join a union. Even that idol of some Opposition Members, Mr. Alex Kitson, the deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, was reported in The Times on 22 June to have said:
I have never agreed with the closed shop as part of a contract of employment between the employee and the employer.
Mr. Kitson and, no doubt, many Opposition Members must feel ashamed to think that any trade union should be so unable to persuade prospective members of its value that it has to dragoon them into joining by a form of blackmail against the wishes of the individual.
It used to be said that although the closed shop might not be very desirable, we could not do anything about it because the major employers all wanted it. It was said that that was why the 1971 Act did not work. That is no longer the case. The CBI now says that the closed shop should be eliminated. The Engineering Employers' Federation is against it in principle. The Institute of Directors, the Association of Independent Businesses and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors are all against it.
It is interesting to see how comparatively alone we are in the Western industrial scene at present with our tolerance of the closed shop. In West Germany, a country with good industrial relations, the closed shop is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is beginning now to stray. Will he confine himself to his argument why the House should give him permission to have his Bill?

Mr. Lawrence: One of the reasons why we should have this Bill is that we are comparatively alone in the Western world in not having such a provision. In West Germany and in France the closed shop is illegal. In Ireland it is unconstitutional to attempt to enforce a closed shop. In Italy any such agreement is null and void. In Sweden they barely have closed shops at all. In the United States pre-entry closed shops are illegal, post-entry closed shops are illegal in 20 states and no one can be deprived of a job in a closed shop anywhere except for failure to pay his dues.
Almost certainly, closed shop agreements are contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, as it is difficult to believe that the right to choose to join any union does not also mean a right not to choose to join, for that


is what choice surely means—[Interruption.] Hon. Members would do well to listen, because I have heard them pontificating about human rights and civil liberties. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts the matter beyond doubt. Article 20 states simply that no one may be compelled to belong to an association.
In the light of all those considerations, the House must surely agree that there is a strong case for dealing with the evils of the closed shop which recent cases show still exist, notwithstanding the Employment Act 1980. Back-Bench Conservative Members have shown—by their 166 signatures to the early-day motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), which asks for amendment to the law to permit employees to obtain and retain jobs irrespective of trade union membership—their desire for early action.
Is my proposed Bill a reasonable, moderate and practical way of dealing with the problem? I hope that the House will consider that it is. It upholds the fundamental right to free association, which in practice other countries have been able to uphold, by stating clearly that everyone shall have a right to join or not to join a union as he or she chooses.
The Bill recognises that it is almost impossible in practice to abolish the closed shop, and that in some limited circumstances, where there is no oppression and everyone is happy, it may even be acceptable. Therefore, I do not seek to abolish it by making it illegal. The Bill does not seek to destroy the animal—merely to draw its venom. It would, therefore, make every present and future union membership agreement void in law, and therefore unenforceable in the courts. It would provide protection for the worker by giving him a right of action in tort in a court of law.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Ah! Lawyers.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Jobs for the boys.

Mr. Lawrence: The judge could decide whether it was a matter for exemplary damages.
I think that hon. Gentlemen will see that my Bill is, as they would expect of me, modest, moderate, harmless to industrial relations and positively beneficial to them, and, therefore, a difficult Bill seriously to oppose. Furthermore, my proposals are almost identical to one of the options being canvassed by the Government in paragraph 273 of the Green Paper, "Trade Union Immunities". Although there may not be time for the Bill to become law in this Session, its passage will give the message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—who is even now considering further measures—"This House, Jim, is right—and close—behind you".
The Bill will also show the electorate that we in this House care about freedom, and are determined to do something more to uphold it in industrial relations.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I think that all hon. Members would have given a great deal more weight to his argument had we not known his profession. He belongs to the greatest of all closed shops—the legal profession. Not one

right hon. or hon. Member or any member of the public who does not belong to the inns of Court could have right of audience in many of our legal institutions.
Much of our legislation provides that people such as chartered accountants shall be the only ones whose word can be accepted in particular cases. That again, is a closed shop. Therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends are urging that there should be an end to the closed shop generally in the workplace, the argument should apply also to their workplaces. The Opposition would not be so foolish as to argue that point, because we believe in every man to his trade—to his avocation, to his profession and to his qualifications—

Mr. Michael Brotherton: And to Ampieforth.

Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman, with his connections with Stonyhurst—a Jesuit college—wishes to make such comments, that is. up to him.
In making his point the hon. Gentleman missed the whole issue. There are two types of closed shop, and the hon. and learned Gentleman failed to recognise either of them. He confused the pre-entry closed shop with the post-entry closed shop, and spoke about neither. One cannot separate closed shops from the social and working conditions with which they are concerned. Closed shops are concerned not only with protecting living standards, wage rates and opportunities—rights that all people, whether lawyers, boilermakers or dock workers are entitled to seek—but with standards, attitudes, professional training and the proper carrying out of trades and avocations.
The hon. Gentleman merely sought to make whipping boys of trade unions on a Green Paper on which the trade union movement as a whole has refused to comment. Its refusal arises from the shortness of the time available and from the bias of its implications, and because the Government have sought, less than any other Government—less even than the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—to bring together the representatives of working people to discuss the prospects for industry and the future of the nation. That is why we should not accept this measure.
There is, however, one point about which my hon. Friends are deeply concerned. People in the trade unions and the working class movement have advanced by virtue of their collective will and purpose. That is a philosophical difference between the Government and the Opposition, but it is a difference that is important to us. It is with that difference that we trace our advancement and the opportunities for improvement for our people.
If the Bill receives the support that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks for it, two things will happen. First, there will be an escalation of conflict within every sector of industry. In present circumstances that cannot be for the good of the country. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman will help the free rider—the person who is not prepared to play any part in the working of our society, who is not prepared to accept his responsibility either in the workplace or in the community, and who rides along on other people's backs. That would be a recipe for division in society, for industrial chaos and, in particular, for more unemployment. That is something that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I cannot accept.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 136.

Division No. 286]
[3.49 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Alton, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Beith, A. J.
Loveridge, John


Bendall, Vivian
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Marlow, Tony


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Mates, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biggs-Davison, John
Moate, Roger


Blackburn, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Bright, Graham
Myles, David


Brinton, Tim
Neale, Gerrard


Brotherton, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Onslow, Cranley


Browne, John (Winchester)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Buck, Antony
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Parris, Matthew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Pawsey, James


Clegg, Sir Walter
Penhaligon, David


Cockeram, Eric
Pink, R. Bonner


Colvin, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Costain, Sir Albert
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dickens, Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Rost, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Sandelson, Neville


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Shepherd, Richard


Fanner, Mrs Peggy
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Speed, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Speller, Tony


Fox, Marcus
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Squire, Robin


Freud, Clement
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Stokes, John


Goodhew, Victor
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gorst, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Trippier, David


Greenway, Harry
Trotter, Neville


Grieve, Percy
Viggers, Peter


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Wall, Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A.
Walters, Dennis


Hannam,John
Ward, John


Hlggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Whitney, Raymond


Hordern, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Wolfson, Mark


Jessel, Toby



Kershaw, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight, Mrs Jill
Mr. Paul Marland and


Lang, Ian
Mr. Christopher Murphy.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Canavan, Dennis


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)





Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Conlan, Bernard
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin F.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
McCartney, Hugh


Crowther, J. S.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cryer, Bob
McElhone, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dalyell, Tam
McNally, Thomas


Davidson, Arthur
McTaggart, Robert


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McWilliam, John


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dempsey, James
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Dixon, Donald
Mikardo, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Dunn, James A.
Newens, Stanley


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eadie, Alex
O'Halloran, Michael


Eastham, Ken
O'Neill, Martin


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


English, Michael
Park, George


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Prescott, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Robertson, George


Ewing, Harry
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Faulds, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Fitt, Gerard
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Flannery, Martin
Short, Mrs Renée


Forrester, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Foster, Derek
Silverman, Julius


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Snape, Peter


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Spriggs, Leslie


George, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Golding, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Stoddart, David


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Stott, Roger


Hardy, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Tilley, John


Haynes, Frank
Tinn, James


Home Robertson, John
Torney, Tom


Hooley, Frank
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Janner, Hon Greville
Watkins, David


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Welsh, Michael


John, Brynmor
White, Frank R.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Winnick, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Woolmer, Kenneth


Kerr, Russell



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Nigel Spearing and


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, there is requirement that when a Member makes a speech and has a direct pecuniary interest, it should be declared. In seeking leave to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill—the speech for a Ten-Minute Bill is treated as a speech justifying its introduction—the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that the Bill would give a right of action in tort. That means a right of court action which can be achieved only through obtaining the services of lawyers who have a monopoly, closed-shop access to the courts.
Clearly, that constitutes a potential direct pecuniary interest. In order to maintain the standards of Parliament, Mr. Speaker—I know that you are anxious to do that; certainly that interest would have to be declared in local authorities—could you give a ruling?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can help the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). First, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) raised a question of public policy. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman might by no means be the lawyer on whom someone would depend.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[29th Allotted Day]—considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — Royall Navy

Mr. George Robertson: Scarcely ever before can a Royal Navy debate have taken place against a more dismal background for Britain's maritime forces. It is no ordinary occasion when such a debate can be preceded only two days earlier by the speech of a noble Lord—a distinguished former admiral of the fleet and recent Chief of the Defence Staff—which said that the present Government's defence review represented the second attempt in the past 24 years by a Tory Government to destroy the Royal Navy. So said Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton on Tuesday in the House of Lords.
At one stroke the Secretary of State for Defence has done more damage to the Royal Navy than any of this country's enemies has ever managed. In the process he has dealt a blow of enormous proportions to the morale of the Senior Service. It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that naval affairs have dominated all the defence debates in the House this year, as the Government's financial and military panics—some of them arising from the end of the Tornado programme, but most from the impending cost pressures of the still unquantified Trident programme—have been taken out against the role of the Royal Navy.
How bizarre it is to look back only two months to the Secretary of State's public: relations triumph in the Estimates debate in May and to consider how his campaign for preferment to the Treasury bounded ahead as he swept aside all the speculation and all the doom preachers in the assorted press; and how the Secretary of State dominated his dismissed Navy Minister, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), whose prophecies he derided. Heresy of heresies, the Secretary of State even broke his own admitted convention and singled out for maximum odium the distinguished naval correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, no less.
The Secretary of State said in May:
Some of the suggestions in the press, especially—and I have never before singled out a newspaper in such a debate—the report by the naval correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, are pure invention.
He went on:
If such ridiculous notions exist anywhere, we have not seen them.
Later, he said to the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner):
I cannot be drawn into commenting about the quite unbelievable things that appear in The Daily Telegraph every day."—[Official Report, 19 May 1981; Vol. 5, c. 161–6.]
The article to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was entitled
Nott Plan to Gut the Navy.
Let us examine what Mr. Desmond Wettern said in The Daily Telegraph of 18 May. This is invention No. 1. He wrote that


29 out of 63 major surface warships would be scrapped prematurely.
We now know from the hon. Member for Ashford that the number will be 26—that is, only three away from pure invention.
Invention No. 2 was of a 30,000 cut in the strength of the Royal Navy. It will not be 30,000, but it will be 10,000. Mr. Wettern invented the closure of two dockyards—Chatham and Portsmouth—and, hey presto, Chatham and Portsmouth are to close. He invented the cancellation of the third ASW carrier, and one of the three carriers is to be sold off to whatever market we can find. He invented the scrapping of amphibious assault ships, and both of the amphibious assault craft are to be scrapped at the end of their lives. He invented the non-modernisation of the type 22 and type 42 frigates, and no later than yesterday the Secretary of State confirmed that there would be no mid-term modernisation of the type 22 or type 42 frigates.
Mr. Desmond Wettern was wrong about the Royal Marines, but, for the record, his pure invention was remarkably close to the defence review ultimately presented by the Secretary of State to this House.
Normally, debates on the Royal Navy are conducted in a fairly non-partisan atmosphere. That was a tradition encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who was my predecessor in this Shadow post and who fought long and hard for the cause of the Royal Navy. It was also a tradition, as I note from Hansard, that was encouraged by the hon. Member for Ashford, the last of the Navy Ministers, whose resignation put his Service on the front pages of the newspapers but whose sacrifice to the cause of open government has still not altered the Navy's fate. I believe that on this occasion it will be well understood if I break with that calm tradition in this far from calm year for the Royal Navy.
However, I emphasise that, as is traditionally expected, I sincerely believe that we should give our thanks and congratulations to those who serve in the Royal Navy, directly and indirectly, and give great service to this country.
I have one perhaps unique qualification as I stand at the Dispatch Box today. I am almost certainly the first official defence spokesman who was born after the end of the Second World War. Therefore, I have experienced no military service of any kind. That is far from unusual, as the period of peace since 1945 has meant that a growing proportion of our population has not had the direct contact with the Armed Forces that practically every generation in our history experienced. Perhaps because of that I feel all the stronger about the direction of this review, which may be the reason why I reject the shallow commentary of the Conservative Party made when in Opposition during the period of office of the previous Labour Government, when it is measured against the actual performance of the Government now in power.
A debate in June 1978 on the Royal Navy during the period of office of the previous Labour Government, was wound up for the then Opposition by the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). I am extremely sorry not to see the hon. Gentleman seated on the Treasury Bench this afternoon. He now bears the romantic title of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement under the new set-up.
Were the hon. Gentleman present to hear what I have to say, I would remind him of what he said during his speech. He said:
We are dependent on our Navy now as ever we were …The more naval forces are weakened at the expense of land forces, the more the naval part of the deterrent is weakened, namely, the likelihood of being able to reinforce and resupply Europe.
The hon. Gentleman concluded with the peroration:
The House and the nation do not want an increased social dividend from the Navy. What we want is a Navy which is given more ships, more strike aircraft, more reconnaissance aircraft, worthwhile mining capability and proper command communications. All these will enable the Navy to safeguard our supplies, contest control of the seas and put our troops ashore. The Navy is our first line of defence."—[Official Report, 19 June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 148–158.]

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, therefore, that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to implement what my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) said some three years ago? If it is the policy of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to increase the expenditure on defence and the Navy, I for one will happily vote with them in the Lobby whenever that question is raised.

Mr. Robertson: Comforted though I am by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) supporting me in any of my ventures, it is interesting to quote, as well as an admiral from the debate in another place, someone who might have been an admiral had he stayed on the ship. I have no doubt that he was in there and, if the hon. Member will bide his time, I shall explain my precise criticisms of the Government's defence review and of the method by which they reached their conclusions.
Let us look back at the promises made by the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton. How rich his rhetoric must have sounded in the ears of the electors of Portsmouth, Chatham, the Medway towns, Devonport, Portland and all the shipyards throughout the country, but how arid and empty it sounds now as the jobs disappear, the ships are not built, the dockyards are shut, the ships grow obsolete, and the shipyards totter on the brink of closure.
However, the real culpability of the Government is not simply their reneging on their election promises or their drum-beating defence noises, but the way in which they have relegated real defence priorities, a conscious defence strategy and a realistic assessment of our defence needs, capacity and resources to a simple obsession with the new and horrendously expensive independent deterrent—the Trident system.
Defence priorities have been shaped in panic this year with no defence criteria and no real thought for the future, in order to accommodate Trident—something which will, to quote Field Marshal Lord Carver, be
an unnecessary and even undesirable
feature of our defence.
The Government are absolutely culpable in their decision against the Royal Navy in favour of Trident and BAOR. That decision will be almost irreversible, and the capacity to change course later will be lost. Naval dockyards cannot simply be reopened. Naval shipbuilders closed down by the Government's dithering over decisions cannot be opened again overnight, and it will be difficult to regain the morale that has been destroyed. In the Armaments and Disarmament Information Unit report this month, David Greenwood of Aberdeen university said:


What the United Kingdom does in the Eastern Atlantic is unique, and it is inconceivable that any of the other European members of NATO would (or could) make good the deficiencies that diminution of the British contribution there would produce.
There lies the crunch.

Mr. Neville Trotter: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the Royal Navy would be cut for the benefit of BAOR. Does that mean that the Opposition's policy would be to cut BAOR if they were in office, and have they taken into account the serious consequences which would flow from that?

Mr. Robertson: I am making the point that some very difficult decisions have had to be made by the Secretary of State. I shall come to that in a moment. Some choices have been made which, in our opinion, are wrong. The most obvious is the Trident programme, which will impinge most on our future defence capacity and spending power. That is the crunch.
In editorial after editorial, in newspaper after newspaper, friends aplenty are warning the Government not to abandon the irreplaceable maritime role in choosing between that and the Trident missile system. Recently, The Times, the Financial Times and even the Spectator have clearly come down in favour of a policy which puts defence effort more on the side of the Royal Navy and less on the side of the independent ballistic missile system. The Government have the cheek to proclaim that they have won the debate on Trident, but they choose to ignore all the evidence of their real loneliness on the issue.
Of course, the Royal Navy has not been decimated for good defence reasons or as the result of a carefully assessed change in what was previously a clear, unequivocal judgment, even in this year's Defence Estimates. Squeezed willy-nilly between Trident and budgetary loss control, rigid monetarism and what the Leader of the House called totally inappropriate cash limits, the surface fleet was to be the casualty.
In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he would now offer NATO 50 surface ships compared with the 59 at present in the fleet. He proclaimed that he was satisfied that the fleet was therefore adequate—although adequate for what was not outlined.
The arithmetic, of course, was just a fiddle. It was a fiddle to placate our NATO allies, especially the Americans. What is lying behind the Casper Weinberger fig leaf? The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) tells us that with the standby squadron, the premature scrapping of frigates, with refits, repairs, dockings, and so on, we shall, by the mid-1980s, have only 32 or 34 operational ships in the Royal Navy. If he does not know, who should? Another estimate puts the figure at 32 ships by 1990, on the reasonable assumption that this new short-life Navy will have a life of 20 years.
The hon. Member for Ashford estimated further that 26 ships will be scrapped within three to four years and that only nine ships will come into service in the same period. It is a sorry picture for Britain's naval fleet and it is far from the rosy figure of 50 peddled by the Secretary of State to keep the United States on the right side of the Government's obsession with keeping the Trident extravaganza. When will the Government come clean about the precise figures for Britain's surplus fleet, or is there yet more to hide?
It is true, however, that the size of the fleet, both now and in the future, matters to more than just the sailors of

the Royal Navy. Perhaps 60,000 jobs in Britain's shipyards depend entirely on naval orders. More than 60 per cent. of British shipbuilding capacity is tied to making Navy ships. How will these yards fare with this gutted fleet? How many yards will close? Will the Minister confirm or deny the rumours and uncertainties in thousands of communities dependent on shipbuilding all over this country?
What will happen to Cammell Laird, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), if no more type 42 destroyers are to be ordered and if all the nuclear and non-nuclear submarine eggs are placed in the Barrow-in-Furness basket? The Minister, in his defence statement, promised us the news of Cammell Laird's future, but still we have not heard a word about it.
What about Swan Hunter, on the already depressed Tyne? What about Vickers, at Southampton? What about Yarrows, on the Clyde? Has the order for the type 22 frigate 07 been placed yet, or are the Government still dithering? Will Yarrows get the frigate 08 so that it can keep in business and keep its scarce manpower until the type 23 frigate has emerged from the Ministry of Defence's bureaucratic assault course?

Mr. Michael Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I have given way several times. These questions are not just about jobs—

Mr. Mates: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) knows that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is not giving way.

Mr. Robertson: These questions are not just about jobs. No sensible defence policy can be built simply on providing jobs. They are about maintaining a capability to rebuild the fleet and to remain independent in the crucial function of defence. No wonder the editor of "Jane's Fighting Ships" hit out last week in solid terms against the Government's policy on fleet orders.
Then there is the magic talisman the type 23 frigate—

Mr. Mates: On this point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: —which is to be the backbone of the new surface fleet. Will it be ordered in 1985, 1986 or in 1988? What will be its equipment? Will it be a fighting ship, or will it be a pseudo-ocean-going tug with a sophisticated towed array and with no active sonar? Is it not true that we shall need to order at least three of them from 1985 onwards to keep up with our emasculated fleet?
I shall now turn to the next question of the Royal dockyards.

Mr. Mates: Before the hon. Gentleman continues, will he give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I cannot give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Petersfield may have an opportunity to speak later in the debate if he is patient.

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that you will give due consideration, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the rights of the hon. Member later on.
What a pity it is that the angry Members from Portsmouth and the Medway have not got a lobby to protest in tonight. We have heard the anger, dismay and outrage and the sheer disbelief that, only a year after the cast-iron assurance that those areas received about the continuing need for four dockyards, only two, apparently, will suffice.
Those who came travelling from all over the country at the behest of the Prime Minister—from my constituency and many others—now know what those exhortations were worth. Again, it makes no defence sense at all. Chatham has the capacity and the principal experience for refitting the SSNs, which in fume are to be the cream of the Royal Navy. It is to close, and the workers are to go to Devonport, where they have yet to finish the first SSN refit, which already is more than a year behind schedule.
Now we hear of the latest foul-up in the Ministry of Defence. Last week, Chatham was told that it had to do the refit on HMS "Dreadnought" because Devonport and Rosyth could not do the work. The people at Chatham were appropriately disdainful of that. With their jobs prejudiced, why should they dig the Government out of the hole that they had created?
I understand that the Ministry is willing to consider another date. Will it delay the closure of Chatham simply to get off this hook? Why cannot Devonport do the refit now? Will Devonport be able to carry out the refits in the future, and will the Minister of State confirm or deny that the refits will be exported to the United States of America? Has that possibility been considered? If not, will the Minister be able to refit with only two dockyards—and one of them committed to the Polaris or Trident submarines—or is it as the Chief of Fleet Support told the Select Committee last week?
I am careful to quote from the Guardian article, since the minutes of the Committee's proceedings are not yet obtainable. The Guardian said:
The Royal Navy admitted yesterday that it was deliberately taking a risk by closing down the Chatham dockyard.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The Select Committee has been at great pains to make the record of those proceedings—which were in public—available. The hon. Gentleman has not taken pains to check the source. I can provide him with the text, and I hope that when he gets it—if he has not bothered to go to the Library for it—he will quote accurately to the House, for a change.

Mr. Robertson: I have taken great pains to check the availability of that report.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman has not.

Mr. Robertson: If I have not checked as assiduously as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I apologise. I simply quote from a reputable newspaper whose representative was present. Indeed, it was confirmed by the words carefully used by another hon. Member that at least an admitted risk is involved in concentrating all the nuclear refitting capacity in only two dockyards. Whether the Chief of Fleet Support said the precise words that I have attributed to him or whether he only thought them, which is more than likely, the fact is that the Government are taking a risk.
I turn to the other mystery—that of the submarine programme. The mystery concerns the Government's

intention to keep a fleet of 17 nuclear-powered attack submarines—the SSNs—and their ability to explain how that will be physically possible if the Trident submarines are to be built in Vickers at Barrow.
In the evidence to the Select Committee on Defence on 16 April last year, the Assistant Under-Secretary of State (Naval Staff) answered a question on the crowding out of the SSN's at Barrow by saying:
Unless there was extra capacity which was made available, the advent of a successor to Polaris would cause some delay in the building up of the SSN programme.
Unlike the Government's other gyrations on the issue, that makes sense. One cannot build everything at the same time at Barrow-in-Furness. Something has to stop for the SSBNs that will be coming on stream, and there will be a fatal gap in time. By the mid-1990s the SSN fleet will be down to 12, simply because five boats will have passed their 25-year life span, and new boats will not be built because the Trident submarines will be blocking up the four years of space. Does this not devastate the foundation of a defence policy based on a 17-strong SSN fleet?
What will happen to the new generation of diesel submarines which we are promised at the rate of one a year? When will this order be ready? Why has Barrow yet again been designated as the lead yard for the first order, when Scott Lithgow on the Clyde can build them, needs to build them and would probably, anyway, be British Shipbuilders' choice as the lead yard?
This defence review is unique in several ways. First, it singles out for butchery the Royal Navy surface fleet without any reasoned argument for such a sudden and dramatic departure from the previous policy of Atlantic reinforcement. Secondly, the review is unique in that, although we are told that it is based on the need for cost containment and financial prudence, no figures for the savings have yet been put forward.

Mr. Mates: What would the hon. Gentleman do?

Mr. Robertson: When shall we know the savings in the budget? How much is to be cut? How much of our GDP will we spend on defence next year, and how much is projected for the end of the decade?

Mr. Mates: How much would the hon. Gentleman's party spend?

Mr. Robertson: Hon. Gentlemen make much noise about that. Today, we are considering the effect on the Royal Navy of the Government's policy. That is dramatic enough.
How much is to be cut, and when will that crucial information be available to the House? Will there be another statement before the end of the Session, or will it simply be slipped through before the Summer Recess in a planted written answer?
Thirdly, the review is unique because those Government Back Benchers and retired admirals expressing controlled outrage still cannot see that hard choices have to be made. Like them, we believe that the cuts are ill-considered, wrongheaded and strategically risky.

Mr. Antony Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: Unlike the Government's critics, including Lord Hill-Norton, we realise that we cannot have a surface navy, the dockyards, all our present naval


capability and Trident at the same time. The sooner Tory hon. Members realise that, the sooner the Royal Navy will have a chance to survive.
Finally, the review is unique because a tub-thumping Conservative Government came to power trumpeting about boosting defence expenditure, curing morale problems and expanding our defence capability. Now we see the sad reality of a Government pretending that expenditure alone means good defence, even when it is spent on a wildly expensive foreign policy symbol. We see a Government who have cruelly and perhaps irreversibly damaged the morale of the Royal Navy while providing no reason for the country to feel that its security and its real defence have been assured.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker): It is traditional on this occasion to review the work of the Royal Navy during the past year, and it is right that we should do so. We have other important matters arising from the recent White Paper to discuss, too.
Before I turn to those subjects, I must say something about the inadequate speech that we have heard from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). It was a most interesting speech, especially as it said nothing about the consequences of the Opposition's policy for the Royal Navy. The Opposition have studiously refused to estimate the effect on the Services of their proposal that our defence expenditure should be reduced to the average percentage of GDP spent by our European allies.
I have been handed a statement—[Interruption.] It is a different statement this time, I am advised that if the cut of £3,500 million which would result from the Opposition's proposal were applied proportionately to the Royal Navy, it would amount to more than the total spending on naval ships and crews this year. We would therefore have no ships and no crews. What effect do the Opposition think that that would have on jobs and morale, and on the shipbuilders? Are we not entitled to ask whether there was not just a little bit of humbug about the hon. Gentleman's speech?
Many people tend to take our Armed Forces for granted. This is an indirect tribute to the effectiveness of our defences. Despite the growing military strength of the Soviet Union, and the brutal way in which it has been used, the fact that this country has not been subjected to the immediate threat of external attack for over 36 years can easily lull our people into forgetting not only the importance of deterrence, both nuclear and conventional, but the men and women without whom deterrence would mean nothing.
The debate is a reminder of how much we owe to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines: first, for helping to keep the peace successfully for so long; secondly, for their contribution to the NATO Alliance, which remains the cornerstone of our national defence policy; and, thirdly, for ensuring in many ways the peacetime protection of our national resources.
I hope that those who take pride in the Navy and its traditions—and I believe that we all do—will also take pride in the fact that the single most important element in our defence forces—the strategic nuclear deterrent, Polaris now and Trident in the future—is and will be operated and supported by the Royal Navy and the civilians who work

with it. It is the single most powerful element of the United Kingdom's commitment to the collective defence of the North Atlantic Alliance.
Since 1969 we have maintained an unbroken deployment of at least one Polaris submarine on patrol, at all times, with its missiles ready. We have good reason to believe that the Soviet Union has never found one of our submarines on patrol. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in paying tribute to those who have successfully undertaken this demanding task over such a long period.
The House has had a number of opportunities in the last 12 months to debate our strategic deterrent, and therefore I do not propose to deal with it any further now except to repeat that Trident is by far the most cost-effective and secure way of continuing our strategic nuclear deterrent into the 1990s and beyond. This point was very clearly brought out by the excellent majority report of the Select Committee on Defence, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
As the most powerful navy in Western Europe, the Royal Navy has a leading part to play in NATO maritime activities, both in peace and in any future conflict. I should like this afternoon to cover our maritime forces in some detail. I know that many hon. Members have sought an assurance that our future capability will be adequate for the tasks that we foresee.
The House knows of the real increase in the costs of defence equipment. A type 22 frigate costs about £120 million, and the latest class of mine countermeasure vessels, the Hunt class, about £30 million. Even with our planned real increase in the defence budget of 3 per cent. per year until 1985–86, we simply could not have afforded to sustain the level of expenditure necessary to retain all our existing forces and the improvements planned for them.
When we assessed our plans it became clear that, even with the real increase in the resources that we shall be allocating to our maritime capabilities, we had to take some tough decisions about priorities. The result of this has been the shift in emphasis towards submarines and maritime patrol aircraft and the decision to eliminate major refits of surface vessels.
Nevertheless, we are not abandoning any element of our maritime capability. We must beware of fighting previous wars when we consider future conflicts. But surface ships, submarines and aircraft all have complementary roles to play in our contribution to the defence of the North Atlantic by the Alliance. Each has a wide range of tasks for which it is uniquely suited in peace and war, although there has undoubtedly been an increase in the vulnerability of surface ships to modern weapons.
We shall be concentrating more of our efforts on forward and barrier operations in the focal areas which Soviet submarines, and surface ships, must cross to reach the North Atlantic and their targets.
Submarines would be used in forward operations, and surface ships, submarines and maritime patrol aircraft all have vital roles to play in barrier operations. But no such barrier is impenetrable, and enemy submarines would almost certainly be deployed in the North Atlantic. We must therefore be capable of defence in depth.
NATO is crucially dependent on its ability to provide rapid transatlantic and cross-Channel reinforcements for the forces already deployed in Europe both before and at the onset of war, and on its ability to resupply. The


security of reinforcement and resupply is therefore vital, and the House is right to seek an assurance about our ability to contribute to that.
The submarine is a powerful enemy, but the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" shows that against an estimated Soviet submarine threat of about 80 attack submarines—nuclear and conventionally powered—NATO can deploy more than 90 anti-submarine warfare ships, 70 submarines and 400 anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am interested in the figures that my hon. Friend has just given, because I understand that the Soviet Union has 179 attack submarines deployed in its northern fleet. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that the figure is inaccurate?

Mr. Blaker: The figures that I have given are taken from page 19 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, and are fully explained there. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at them. I have examined them very carefully with the experts in the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The Minister says that 90 ASW vessels are available to NATO. Are they assigned to NATO? If so, are they assigned at less than 30 days' declaration? Do they all fall within categories A and B? That is the test that we must apply to the Minister's claim.

Mr. Blaker: The figure is 94, to be precise, and those are the ones declared to NATO.

Mr. Duffy: Which category?

Mr. Blaker: In various categories. The hon. Gentleman will find it explained on page 19 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates.
We shall be devoting substantial resources to improving the effectiveness of the sensors and anti-submarine weapons of our section of these forces. This includes the new passive towed array system that we hope to introduce into service next year.
Royal Air Force maritime capabilities will include 34 Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. All the Nimrods will be equipped with the new Sting Ray torpedo. In addition, we shall run on into the 1990s two squadrons of Buccaneer aircraft in the anti-shipping role, which we plan to equip with improved avionic and electronic warfare equipment and the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile.
My right hon. Friend mentioned our intention to retain in the fleet 50 destroyers and frigates, of which eight would be in the standby squadron. This will mean disposing of some of our older and more manpower-intensive vessels. Our aim will be to run these ships until their next refit would have been due. But at the same time we shall be introducing into service seven new type 42 destroyers and four type 22 frigates.
The type 42 destroyers are equipped with the Sea Dart air defence missile system, which incidentally also has a good anti-ship capability, the rapid fire gun, and anti-submarine torpedoes. Their Lynx helicopters will carry the Sea Skua anti-ship missile when it enters service, as well as anti-submarine torpedoes. In total, we shall have 14 of these ships in the fleet. They will be operational until the late 1990s.
The type 22 frigates are designed for anti-submarine warfare and are equipped with the latest computer associated sonar system, advanced sensors and communications equipment. They, too, carry the Lynx anti-submarine helicopter and are armed with Exocet surface-to-surface missiles and Sea Wolf close-range air defence missiles. We shall keep under study the need to place any further orders for these ships in addition to the one that my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 25 June.

Mr. Trotter: If the Minister feels that the type 42 destroyers can stay in service until the late 1990s, surely their Sea Dart system will be well out of date by that time—in fact, long before it. Should not there be a replacement for it, or a modernisation of it?

Mr. Blaker: We have decided not to go ahead with the large-scale modernisation of that vessel, for reasons which I think my hon. Friend will already have understood.
These new frigates will represent an impressive addition to the Royal Navy's firepower, but they are very expensive to acquire and maintain. For the next generation we are therefore aiming at a cheaper and less sophisticated vessel, which will be attractive in the export market as well as to the Royal Navy. We shall get this frigate, the type 23, into service as quickly as possible and in the largest quantities that our resources will permit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged the contribution that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) made to this concept. We shall be working closely with British Shipbuilders on it.
The type 21 s and most of the Leanders will continue in service for many years. We plan to complete the five vessels undergoing major modernisation, and they will provide a welcome enhancement to our firepower. In summary, the escort fleet will be smaller than it has been in the past, but it will be younger, and the ability of the ships to hunt and destroy hostile submarines will be greatly increased by the introduction of new long-range sonar and the Sting Ray torpedo, the most advanced weapon of its type in service with any navy.
At the same time we shall be increasing the number of nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines in the fleet. As I explained to the House on 7 July, the number of new boats of this type ordered will depend on the availability of resources, but we hope to be able to order more than the SSN 17.

Sir Frederick Burden: If the resources are available, how many more hunter-killers will the Government build, apart from the 21 that will come into operation?

Mr. Blaker: I do not think that I mentioned the figure 21. I cannot go beyond what I have said. I said that I hoped that we should be able to build more than the SSN 17.
In home waters we shall continue to attach great importance to protecting the United Kingdom and its national resources offshore. I shall describe our peace-time operations in this role later. Two new offshore patrol vessels are currently under construction—the Castle class. We have seven Hunt class mine countermeasure vessels currently on order, which will join those already in service. We hope to order more. We have made it clear that a new class of minehunters will proceed and that we shall continue work on defensive mining. We shall strengthen the Royal Naval Reserve by buying new, low-cost minesweepers as soon as funds can be made available.
The review was intended to concentrate resources on the front line, maximising the return that we obtain from our investment on complex equipment, and to reduce the overheads and infrastructure of the Armed Forces. This includes the support organisation for the fleet. I shall deal shortly with the effect of the review on the dockyards.
One of our decisions is to abandon the expensive policy of mid-life modernisation of surface ships. This is relevant to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). Ordinary refits will continue. Perhaps I can illustrate the difference between the two—the mid-life modernisation and the ordinary refit—by the fact that a major modernisation is the equivalent, in demand on resources, of five ordinary refits. This accounts for the fact that the new policy will save a great deal of money, but will at the same time greatly reduce our need for dockyard capacity. The consequence of this, as the dockyard study showed, is that a short-life fleet will give us a higher operational availability per ship.
The House will want me to say more about the dockyards. I make no apologies for referring again to the long and historic record of service that both Chatham and Portsmouth have given to the Royal Navy. They can justly be proud of their centuries of association with the Royal Navy and it is only right that in the Navy debate the Government should place on record their gratitude to them and our deep regret that it is now necessary to close the naval base and dockyard at Chatham and to run down the dockyard at Portsmouth.
I know that many hon. Members, particularly many of my hon. Friends, are concerned about these decisions. That is true not only of local hon. Members, who are concerned about the effect upon their constituents, but of the House as a whole, which wishes to be sure that the remaining dockyards will have sufficient capacity to support the fleet.
In particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden), for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner), for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) have questioned whether Devonport and Rosyth will be able to refit our SSN fleet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already discussed this with them, and I am arranging a further meeting for them with the officials concerned in the Ministry of Defence to discuss the nuclear refitting programme. However, I think that on this occasion the House would expect some assurances from me.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to the House that the introduction of longer life cores for the reactors in nuclear submarines and experience and improvement in the peformance and durability of submarine equipment and materials were allowing us to extend the interval between refits by 10 per cent. for our older classes of submarines and by 20 per cent. for the new Swiftsure class.

Sir Federick Burden: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again. For how many more months will those submarines be at sea before they go in for a refit? How will the length of time compare with that of today?

Mr. Blaker: I cannot give that information to my hon. Friend, because I am told that I cannot give it publicly. I can give him only the figures of 10 and 20 per cent. Indeed, I asked whether I could reveal that figure, but I cannot. This will have a significant effect in reducing the

demands on the dockyards. I do not underestimate the complexity of refitting a nuclear submarine, which is equivalent to the workload which used to be required to refit the aircraft carriers, despite their obvious difference in size.
The country has already made a sizeable investment in modern nuclear refitting facilities in both Devonport and Rosyth—in the case of the former, about £85 million to build a new submarine refitting complex, which will allow the dockyard to work on three submarine refits at the same time. Devonport dockyard is, at the moment, twice the size of Chatham. The size of the work force will give management increased flexibility, which will allow a more economical allocation of tasks.
At Rosyth we plan to refit two streams of nuclear submarines in phase with the forecast build-up of the load in the late 1980s.
We shall need about 1,500 extra staff at Devonport and 600 at Rosyth. Some of these we expect to be transferred from Chatham and Portsmouth. Very little additional capital expenditure on nuclear refitting facilities will be required in the dockyards because of the review.
I am satisfied that we shall have the necessary facilities to provide refits for our SSN fleet as well as for our ballistic missile nuclear submarines—the SSBNs—and that we shall be able to build up our work force to the required level.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: If my hon. Friend is satisfied, why should Admiral Pillar have spoken in the Select Committee in the following way about the nuclear refitting programme:
I would not pretend the programme is without risk"?
My hon. Friend must come clean. If there is a risk, he should quantify it. We should know whether the risk is acceptable.

Mr. Blaker: Of course there is a risk. Indeed, I was asked about this yesterday. For example, as a result of industrial action a refit might take longer than anticipated. However, there is a significant gap between the time when a submarine goes out and the time when the next submarine comes in.

Mrs. Fenner: It would be less than open of my hon. Friend if he were to place industrial relations first in that element of risk. If there is a risk in terms of the time taken, he should not suggest that there would not be a risk if there were no industrial relations problem. Whether or not there are bad industrial relations, is there not a risk in terms of the months taken to refit, and Devonport's capacity to carry out the work?

Mr. Blaker: The only risk that I have identified is that of bad industrial relations. In any circumstances, there is a risk. There is now a dispute with the civil servants, and as a result, although we have four dockyards, things are running low. Even if there were four or five dockyards we should still be in an unsatisfactory situation if there were a national strike. I believe that the risk, such as it is, is one that we should be prepared to accept.
I know that hon. Members in the Chatham and Portsmouth areas, in particular, are concerned about the rundown of the two dockyards and their future work load. I am pleased to be able to confirm to the House that we plan that Chatham will complete the work on the warships that is in hand, on HMS "Warspite" and "Churchill", two hunter-killer submarines, and HMS "Hermione" and


"Phoebe", two Leander class frigates. In addition, we are planning to put HMS "Dreadnought", another hunter-killer submarine and HMS "Cleopatra" into the dockyard early next year. A number of smaller ships are also likely to be refitted there. This will allow us to make the most cost-effective use of the facilities there during the rundown period.
At Portsmouth, HMS "Sea Lion", "Fife", "Birmingham" and a number of smaller ships are currently in the dockyard and we are planning that HMS "Opportune" will start a refit in September and HMS "Newcastle" will start her normal refit there in the spring of next year. Additionally, over a dozen ships are expected over the next 12 months in Portsmouth for docking and essential defects work.
I know that my hon. Friends in the Portsmouth area are concerned that the Ministry of Defence should identify and release any surplus land and facilities as soon as possible. I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) to give the initial reaction of the Ministry to a list of sites that he has sent me in which the Portsmouth city council is interested.
The Ministry of Defence has a positive interest in identifying and disposing of surplus land as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has authorised me to say that his Department will pursue a positive policy designed to get the property on to the market as soon as possible and to attract the maximum interest in its development and redevelopment.
I have to remind the House, however, that the rundown of the dockyard at Portsmouth will not be completed until 1984 and it will be some time before we can be sure what naval shore facilities can be released. But we shall move as quickly as possible to identify available land.
Any rundown of the size at Chatham and Portsmouth causes difficulties and anxieties not only to the hon. Members concerned but to those whose jobs are affected and the local authorities and trade unions. The closest consultation will be needed between all these bodies and the Ministry of Defence and other Ministries which are concerned. The rundown will be a complex business, requiring much planning and care.
At Portsmouth, some staff will still be needed to help service the fleet base there. Others, at both Chatham and Portsmouth, will have the opportunity to move to other defence establishments. But we must face the fact that there are bound to be redundancies, which will be phased over the next three years.
The Hampshire county council has set up a working group to consider ways and means of stimulating alternative employment. The group will have its first meeting at Winchester this Friday and the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments will be represented. If the local authorities in the Chatham area wished to do the same, we would, of course, be very happy to take part.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Where there are rundowns, do the Government intend to take any direct initiative to see that additional work is brought into those areas for those made redundant? Or do the Government intend largely to leave this to private enterprise, apart from the activities of various working parties? Will the hon. Gentleman make this clear as a point of principle?

Mr. Blaker: We shall be consulting the local authorities in South Hampshire. In a couple of days' time

we shall hear their views. The resources of the Government will be devoted to seeing that the problems, not least the problems of those who will lose their jobs, are eased as much as possible.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Where redundancy is, unfortunately, necessary, what will be the scale of payments? Will it bear any relation to the maximum compensation of £18,000 for British Steel Corporation workers, the £10,300 for British Shipbuilders workers or the £6,300 for Post Office workers?

Mr. Blaker: A redundancy scheme is already in operation as a result of measures taken by the Labour Government in 1974–75. The arrangements under that scheme will continue to apply.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the trade unions be brought into discussions on plans for alternative employment at Chatham and elsewhere?

Mr. Blaker: I am about to come to that. The short answer is "Very much, yes". I shall continue to keep closely in touch with local hon. Members and the trade unions—the point raised by the hon. Gentleman—and a special focal point is being set up in the Department to co-ordinate action on personnel matters at official level.
My right hon. Friend has had a number of meetings with hon. Members from the Medway and South Hampshire areas and with the local authorities. He has already had talks with representatives of the trade unions, and he will be seeing them again next week. We propose to give the trade unions consultative papers on the rundown and its personnel implications, and special consultative machinery has already been set up.
I turn now, although I shall have to treat it briefly, to a report on the Royal Navy's peacetime activities during the last 12 months. Surface ships, submarines and aircraft of the Navy and the Royal Marines have taken part in a wide range of NATO exercises. These included the amphibious exercise Team Work 80, in September, which spanned all three NATO commands and involved forces from nine other members of the Alliance. Over 30 ships and submarines of the Royal Navy took part, together with the British element of the United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force, including a brigade headquarters and two Royal Marine Commandos.
Hon. Members will know that for all the crucial importance to our security of membership of NATO, naval activity is not confined to the NATO area. Between May and December last year a task group of three frigates and two destroyers, together with afloat support, deployed through the Indian Ocean to the Far East and back. Three ships from the group paid the first Royal Navy visit to the People's Republic of China and enjoyed very warm hospitality. In all, the task group visited about 20 ports in 15 countries. The opportunity was taken to train with our friends and allies, including, for the first time ever, the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force and subsequently the United States Navy.
It was thanks to the presence in East Asia of the task group that, following the outbreak of war between Iraq and Iran, it was possible so swiftly to start the Gulf of Oman patrol. Ever since then, two warships, with afloat support, have been stationed in the vicinity of the Straits of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf, through which so much of the free world's essential oil supplies pass.
In peacetime, a large part of the Royal Navy's day-to-day business is the protection of our natural resources. For example, the Royal Navy fishery protection squadron, assisted by RAF aircraft, plays a vital role in safeguarding our fishery resources—a task the Royal Navy has been involved in for over seven centuries. Last year over 1,500 foreign vessels, from a wide variety of countries, were boarded. As a result, a number of successful prosecutions were brought for breaches of the fisheries laws.
The vessels of the fishery protection squadron also provide a continuous patrol in the vicinity of our offshore oil and gas installations. Here again we have vital national resources, the protection of which falls naturally to the Royal Navy. Last year saw the establishment at Arbroath of Commacchio Company, the Royal Marines' quick reaction force, which can deploy, in response to a request from the civil power, to any installation threatened by terrorist attack.
Such an attack on an offshore installation would bring about a professional and effective response from the Royal Marines, working closely with naval ships and aircraft. This should be a powerful deterrent to a potential terrorist attack.
Last January the Government had to take the painful decision to disband 41 Cammando, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend in his statement at the time. The unit rounded off a distinguished history with a very successful tour of duty in South Armagh. I am pleased to record that tills tour was completed without any Royal Marines casualties, and that eight members of the Commando later received awards. 45 Commando is now deployed in Northern Ireland on a four-month tour. Within a week of its arrival the Commando was engaged in two major incidents, which resulted in the arrest of several terrorists and the recovery of their weapons.

Sir Patrick Wall: Can my hon. Friend confirm that as 41 Commando has been disbanded there will be no further cuts in the Royal Marines?

Mr. Blaker: I can assure my hon. Friend that we intend to maintain the three existing Marine Commandos.
The Royal Marines took part earlier this year in the annual Arctic warfare exercise in Norway, culminating in the aptly named Kald Winter, together with forces from Norway, the Netherlands and the United States.
Further afield, an event occurred which I have other reasons for remembering. A British force, including a tactical headquarters and a company from 42 Commando, was deployed to the New Hebrides, now Vanuatu, to help restore law and order on the rebel island of Espiritu Santo. The Prime Minister of Vanuatu rightly gave credit to the Royal Marines for helping to ensure that his country was able to achieve independence on the planned date.
The peace-time operations of the Royal Navy also include assistance in emergency to the victims of natural disasters and search and rescue. Royal Navy personnel have provided valuable assistance in the past year to communities in the Caribbean and in Italy. In the year up to the end of April naval helicopters were called out on nearly 300 occasions to civilians in distress and rescued 187 people.
Before I leave operational matters, I should like to mention the surveying flotilla, which, in 1980, had one of its most productive years on record. Hydrography is a vital task, which depends on painstaking work carried out under conditions which are often rough and unpleasant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) asked yesterday whether a decision had been made on the "HMS Herald" autumn programme. I can confirm that she will be going to the Gulf area, where she will be engaged on valuable survey work.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am anxious to clear up the difference over figures that we had earlier. I think that I know the reason for the difference. Will my hon. Friend accept that the figure that he gave was for only one of the northern USSR fleets and that if we also count the Baltic and Mediterranean fleets, both of which have access to the North Atlantic, the figure for submarines in the Soviet fleet would be 175?
If that is so, will my hon. Friend expand on what he has told us about his plans for defending convoy operations between America and this country?

Mr. Blaker: If one counts all the various Soviet fleets, one finds that there are many more submarines than the number that I gave. That figure is the estimate that the Ministry made of the threat that would face us in the North Atlantic. It is directly relevant to the problem of ferrying ships across the North Atlantic for resupplying.
We have constantly stressed the high priority that we give not only to attracting the right numbers and quality of men and women to the Services but to retention and keeping them long enough to get an adequate return from their training and experience.
I am happy to be able to report that over the past year both recruiting and retention for the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have been excellent. While pay is important, money is not the only factor in recruiting and retention. We have to be flexible, for example in relation to terms of service, and they have been improved in a number of ways, which my hon. Friend the Undersecretary may be able to expand on when he replies to the debate.
I should like to say a word about the WRNS. We are continuing to seek ways of extending the valuable contribution that the WRNS make to the naval service by increasing the avenues of employment open to them, though there are constraints, particularly in relation to sea service.
The first WRNS air engineering officer is now undergoing professional training at Manadon and WRNS air engineering mechanics have several times deployed to sea for short periods on board the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Engadine" with their helicopter squadrons.
I should also mention the excellent work done by the Royal Naval Reserve and its counterparts, which have vital tasks to perform in wartime. Numbers continue to increase. Training continues at a high level, and the Reserves have played an active and essential part in a number of recent exercises, including Wintex 81. Development at the RNR (Air) Branch has been most satisfactory; it has already achieved its initial manpower target since it was set up last year.
This has not been an easy year for any of our Armed Services, but the Royal Navy has had to face more difficult adjustments than either of the other two Services.
Nevertheless, with an increasing defence budget, our expenditure on the maritime role will grow over the coming years in real terms. The fleet of the future, though fewer in numbers, will have a greater reach and hitting power than that of 10 years ago. Its ships will be more


modern and spend more of their time operational. There will be more emphasis on submarines and aircraft, but the surface fleet will have a continuing and vital role to play, both in the crucial area of the North Atlantic and outside the NATO area. The judgment on our future forces was a difficult one, but the Government believe that they have made the right choice on the way ahead, and on 7 July the House endorsed it.
We need in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the WRNS, men and women of the highest calibre. The task they have remains, and will remain, one demanding the highest standards of courage, endurance and skill. It will become even more demanding in the future. I believe that we have in the Service, and shall continue to have, men and women who meet that test. The House and the nation at large are in their debt.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on his opening speech. He was lucid and convincing, and his speech will stand close scrutiny. It was a competent performance from an hon. Member who was opening a debate for the first time. My hon. Friend got the debate off to a good start. That is important, because for some years Navy debates have had the reputation of being good and constructive, and of being conducted in a good atmosphere.
I am sorry that the Minister described my hon. Friend's speech as inadequate. If any hon. Member is badly placed to call another hon. Member's speech inadequate it is the Minister. No Conservative Member who was present for the hon. Gentleman's reply to our debate on the defence review will disagree with that, whatever outward show he may make. The hon. Gentleman did not even give way to many of his own right hon. and hon. Friends. Whatever the Minister's record in the Foreign Office—and I dare say that it was very good—he does not strike me as convincing at the Ministry of Defence. He certainly does not have the Navy touch, and he is not yet credible in his new appointment. I do not expect that the Under-Secretary who is to reply will impress me more.
We have been fortunate for some years in having on both sides of the House spokesmen on the Armed Services who have had a degree of credibility and have brought authenticity to our debates. I see none in the Ministers now on the Government Front Bench. Therefore, I attach no importance to the reply to the debate.
We have had three major defence debates this year, but not one decent reply. Anyone who reads Hansard will know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been disappointed with the replies to those debates. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Defence has left the Chamber, because he was guilty in the first two debates. He kept his head down and would not give way, although he did not keep as closely to his brief as did the Minister today.
Some Conservative Members may believe that I am being less than fair, but I am looking for a high standard in an hon. Member who purports to be a Navy Minister. I know that we no longer have a Navy Minister, and that is part of the explanation. But that is the Government's responsibility. Conservative Members might like to know

that the recommendation that Service Ministers should be dispensed with has been lying around in the Ministry of Defence for many years. The Labour Government did not act on it. They knew that the Services needed their shop stewards. We know that they need a representative. We know that they need someone other than a uniformed officer or admiral or their captain who will go on to the mess decks.
I do not know whether either of the Ministers present has ever been on the lower deck of a modern naval vessel. I do not know whether they know what a modern naval vessel looks like, but I know—and many Conservative Members agree with me privately—that increasingly Service men are more demanding, articulate and sensitive to what is happening around them. They raise more and more questions. In recent years the role of Service Ministers has become more demanding than it was a few years ago. If ever there was a time when we might have dispensed with Service Ministers, it was not in 1980 or in 1981. I dare say that we shall feel the need for Service Ministers in 1982 and 1983.
The House will remember that it reminded the Secretary of State that he should not place too much reliance on the SSNs—the hunter-killer nuclear submarines—and the maritime patrol aircraft, with which the Minister seems to have fallen in love. Like all converts he has shown an excessive zeal for their capability. The Secretary of State was reminded by hon. Members on both sides that he must not attach too much importance to barrier operations and the new combination. It is good, but it has its limitations. The Minister conceded today that submarines could slip through the barrier. They can, and they are doing so. The Minister assured the House that it need not worry. Whatever suggestions had been made in recent months that the surface fleet should be severely cut, we still have 94 ships available for anti-submarine warfare or escort purposes.
I am paraphrasing what the hon. Gentleman said, but there is no doubt that he said that there were 94 ASW ships available. He referred me to page 19 of the defence statement. I agree that there are 94 ships available if one includes France. There are 94 ships available if one includes not only the Atlantic but the Channel. The hon. Gentleman had the Atlantic in mind when he offered that figure to us.
The Minister may not yet know, but I hope that he will learn quickly, that what matters are ships that are assigned and in particular categories. Many Conservative Members understand that. When he was trying to answer me, when he was caught out, two or three of his hon. Friends were smiling behind his back. They know that what matters at Northwood are ready forces at certain notice. Three of four hon. Gentlemen know that we must allow for ships that are removed to go to Belize, the Caribbean or the Gulf, or are on passage, not including the task forces that the Minister mentioned. Then there are sudden demands. There are ships in dockyards—sometimes one-third of the fleet, and never less than one-quarter. One can understand why hon. Members are doing their arithmetic and wondering whether we might have to consider between now and 1984 having only 26 or 29 surface ships available for Northwood. That is a different figure from that mentioned by the Minister. I hope that he will improve that figure, because the Navy deserves and has received better treatment in recent years.
Again, the House is at a disadvantage in the debate because there has been no attempt at long-term costings. How the Government can talk about shipbuilding programmes without introducing costing information is beyond me. We cannot expect new build unless we think of scrap, but we cannot talk about scrap and build unless we have long-term costings. That is why some Conservative Members are nervous about what the Government are doing—more scrapping and less building. Hon. Members will not be assured unless they are given the long-term costings soon.
All that must be set within the context of strategic analysis. We have not had that, although there were brave attempts to provide the House with such information in the last defence debate, notably by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Jay). I hope that more hon. Members will continue to raise questions, because many questions should be raised about the defence review. However, such questions are unlikely to be answered. That is why I attach no importance to the winding-up speech.
I shall pose some questions not with any expectation of satisfaction but to place them on the record. It is important that the questions are registered. Such questions will make hon. Members think—though some hon. Members are abreast of me and others are ahead. Hon. Members are worried about the attitude of the Secretary of State for Defence to deterrence. What is he trying to do? What contribution will the defence review make to the Alliance? Will it improve deterrence? We can all join in the objective not to go to war but to deter an aggressor. I have found it heart-warming that our top admirals have said that to me in recent years. It gives me great pleasure to pass on such information to my constituents and to reassure them that out top admirals and military commanders are not looking for or preparing for war. They are for maintaining peace, and if war breaks out they will feel that they have failed. That is the only attitude to which the Opposition and the Government can subscribe.
Deterrence is important. We know that it depends on a flexible response, which means conveying to the Russians that there is no scenario, whether for a long or short war, that they can pursue with advantage. The Secretary of State for Defence is leaving hon. Members on both sides of the House with an uneasy feeling that he is thinking of a short war. I repeat what I said in the last defence debate: once we have that frame of mind, we have lost the war. There is growing evidence that others in the world are thinking of a longer war. From what we know of Russian thinking, they are showing much more interest in the interdiction of Atlantic supply lines.
First, will the defence review enhance deterrence? Will it deter war? Is the Secretary of State for Defence matching all possible scenarios against the options short of war through his defence review? Does he believe in a flexible response? Does his preference for Trident mean that he must pursue Trident, and provide for it financially more and more as time goes on at the expense of the other end of the flexible response spectrum? That is where our surface ships come in. We are concerned about not only building surface ships and providing jobs, but maintaining dockyards. We attach more importance to a conventional posture, because we are nervous of a nuclear one. Above all, we are concerned not to lend ourselves to any attitudes or policies that might lower the nuclear threshhold. That is why deterrents are so important.
Secondly, I want to mention the impact of the defence review on Alliance strategy and burden sharing. I recognise that the proportion of the British defence budget devoted to equipment has risen steeply in recent years. It now constitutes 45 per cent. The effect of that and increasing the size and capability of United Kingdom forces has been largely offset by the continuing rise in procurement costs and new weapons.
I recognise the difficulty facing the Secretary of State for Defence, but it has not arisen only in the last year. This matter is by no means confined to this Administration. The Labour Government had to grapple with the problem for years, and they were able to do so in a more even-handed and balanced way. Indeed, over the past two decades the steep rise in the cost of the new generation of weapons equipment has been the prominent factor affecting the size and shape of United Kingdom forces, particularly the Navy. Allowing for inflation, the cost per tonne of warships has risen in that period by a factor of between 10 and 15. A frigate which cost £4 million to £6 million in the early 1960s can be replaced today only at a cost of £120 million, as the Minister said. I should put at least another £10 million on that figure.
That increase is not merely the result of inflation, It is a measure of the increasing complexity of the operational environment and the need for improved performance or quality. Quality has increasingly been bought at the price of fewer weapons systems. Thus, an explosion in defence technology has brought an explosion in cost. In turn, that has posed a new set of questions, for example, in the conduct of ASW in the Atlantic. The Secretary of State said that in the first defence debate this year. We sympathise with him and we understand. However, what worries many people, particularly those who took pan: in the debate in the other place, including a former Chief of Defence Staff, is that too few answers are being provided by the Secretary of State. Those that are provided are disturbing and unacceptable.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman referred to answers given by the Secretary of State and junior Ministers. Will he answer a simple question? Is he seriously trying to convince the House that a Labour Government would have increased defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms annually?

Mr. Duffy: That was the Labour Government's policy when they went out of office. Indeed, a Labour Government initially subscribed to the NATO Alliance policy. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friends. However, I am sure that they would join me in saying that we should be concerned about the country's defence. We should be concerned for it on the most cost-effective terms and on the most balanced basis. We should get our priorities right. For that reason, as well as for moral reasons and reasons of principle, we reject Trident, for example.

Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman has reached a very thoughtful part of his remarks. I agree with almost everything in the analysis that he made in the last five or six minutes. He analysed the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to make this series of serious decisions. He correctly identified the explosion in technological advance which has far outstripped the rate of inflation. But does the hon. Gentleman think that that explosion will now come to an end, or does he think that


it will go right through to the next generation of the procurement of weapons systems, not just for the Royal Navy but right across the Services? If so, what is his answer to how we combat that within a reasonable defence budget?

Mr. Duffy: That was a good intervention. I think that the steep rise in the cost of defence technology will continue to present problems. The problems will be as severe as those with which the Secretary of State is now grappling. That is why I believe that he has to tackle them now. If he does not, he will have to come back. I hope that nobody believes that this is the end of the defence crisis. Some Conservative Members know in their hearts that this is not the end. They know that the Defence Secretary or his successor will come back to the House with another defence review perhaps within 18 months, but certainly not more than two years hence.

Mr. Trotter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the Conservative Benches there would be no support for such a move, and that we see no sign of it whatever?

Mr. Duffy: I cannot add to what I said when speaking of cost-effectiveness and priorities. That must be the basis of our attitude now. That is the only way out. Increasingly fulfilling our Alliance responsibilities on a division of task basis, I believe to be one source of relief. We must concentrate on increasing specialisation of tasks and doing what we are fitted to do best for reasons of history, geography and expertise. We should not want to do too much for too long. There has always been some debate about the relative importance of optional systems with the object of achieving the right mix in the light of the changing nature of the threat.
I shall continue, by way of illustration, to draw upon the United Kingdom's maritime role, for example in EASTLANT and the Channel where we have to provide 70 per cent. of ready forces. The emergent mix will more and more reflect budgetary pressure than strategic need, and much less appropriate response and assigned responsibility. In other words, the Secretary of State has set his feet on a path along which he might be driven further by the present cost considerations. The emergent mix might consequently reflect a narrowing of options and an increasing reliance, for example, on SSNs and MPAs. The Minister was apologetic in his reference to both this afternoon. He has reason to be, because of the narrowing mix and the higher risk strategy. That is at the expense of surface ships. It might not come off.
We need a balanced and interdependent contribution. Such a development in conventional weaponry might have the effect of raising the nuclear threshold, just as it could be lowered as a direct consequence of a high risk strategy in the North Atlantic in relation to reinforcement and supply in the central region of Europe.
Resource allocation and overall Alliance strategy must be seen ever more clearly because they will keep coming back as interrelated issues as budgetary constraints continue and perhaps intensify. The problem will not go away. It will come back. We should square up to it realistically now. The budgetary constraints can be reconciled only on the basis of the increased application of the division of tasks right across the Alliance, and that means a more active policy of defence co-operation.
One obvious instance—I do not wish to dwell on it—is our maritime role. That involves the problem of getting vast quantities of material across the Atlantic, not necessarily during a war but at a time of tension. Britain is assigned to that role to a greater extent than any other country. We provide 70 per cent. of ready forces. We are aware of the maritime threat to reinforcements and supply. Clearly, one choice illustration is the defence of NATO's sea lines of communication.
A wide variety of platforms are available for that work, all suggesting interdependence and therefore the need for co-operation. None is predominant. The mobility and extent of the threat will call increasingly for co-operation within our own Services and, increasingly, at Alliance level.
Despite the diversity and interdependence of ASW platforms, two have become increasingly valued—SSNs and MPAs. However, they are not predominant. They depend for maximum effectiveness on information that they are unlikely to provide themselves. The role of surface ships, especially in conjunction with helicopters in terms of command, control and communications, is indispensable to the most effective deployment of SSNs and MPAs. Surface ships are also indispensable in the provision of the widest range of anti-air capabilities—I refer to the Harrier—to deal with reconnaissance aircraft from platforms, such as the Invincible class, as well as point and area defence missile systems that the type 42 can provide to deal with Soviet missile threats. In that instance the value of surface ships is obvious.
The question of resource allocation and overall Alliance strategy will keep coming back to us as budgetary constraints intensify. I am arguing that defence reviews will have to be examined rigorously at some time in future—preferably now—against the background of Alliance strategy and objectives. I wonder whether the Secretary of State consulted his Alliance partners. I am asking not whether he went to Washington and Bonn after the defence review was approved by the Cabinet, but whether he consulted his Alliance partners. As the principle of the division of tasks is increasingly adopted within the Alliance, two perceptions must prevail: first, that Trident is, at best, incremental and, at worst, a needless sophistication; secondly, that Trident might hamper what is clearly the United Kingdom's most important contribution to the Alliance—her maritime role and, in particular, her operational capability in mid-Atlantic.
The Secretary of State has argued in the House more than once that the cuts involved in the review are in infrastructure more than in the front line. How, then, does he view the relative effects, say, in 1984? When will he offer that kind of projection? He must know that there is as much anxiety on that score among Conservative Members as there is among Labour Members, because of the involvement of the dockyards.
I mentioned earlier the declaration of ships to NATO at less than 30 days' notice in, for example, categories A and B. How many such ships can we declare to NATO by 1984 compared with 1977? Conservative Members should keep that question in their minds. It is not one that needs to be answered now—that would not be possible, anyway—but they should demand to know how many ships will be available at less than 30 days' notice to NATO at the end of this Administration, compared with the numbers that were available to NATO in categories A


and B in the middle of the Labour Administration. That would be a useful test of the service provided by the two Administrations to this country's maritime capability, and it is a question that deserves to be answered on its own merits.
I hope that Conservative Members will not be dazzled by the prospect of a type 23 frigate. In my view, that is merely a twinkle in the eye of the Defence Secretary. When I was in the Navy Department we used to play about with the notion of the type 24. We had the same thinking about the type 24 as, presumably, the Defence Secretary now has about the type 23. We had the same hopes, beliefs and expectations. I suppose that he has forgotten about the type 24, and I suggest that the type 23 will have the same fate.
There was no mention today of the helicopter. The Minister mentioned ships, and I was tempted to intervene to ask about helicopters. The Sea King helicopter replacement, as all hon. Members know, is vital. Why cannot a decision be taken? I realise that it is a difficult decision, but the matter has gone on forfar too long. What will be the future of the surface fleet if there is no replacement for the Sea King?
Now I come to personnel. Men do not join the Royal Navy to go into submarines. They go into the Navy and then they join the submarines. The ambition of every submarine commander is to command a surface ship. How large a proportion of the Navy can be expected to become submariners? There must be general service and a balance of opportunities—otherwise recruitment will suffer.
In recent years the Navy has pressed people into submarines from general service, where necessary, but that assumes a reasonable level of general service. Clearly, that balance will be upset. How can a submarine force level planned with a nuclear refitting stream at Chatham be sustained in its absence? I do not know the answer to that. The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) did not get an answer to that question this afternoon or on previous occasions. Neither did the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden). I repeat: how can a submarine force level planned with a nuclear refitting stream at Chatham be sustained in its absence? It is all very well for the Minister to say that a risk is involved and that he is prepared to accept that risk, but I hope that he will think again, because he has convinced no one in the House. What costs and risks are involved and why, bearing in mind that men, expertise and facilities exist at Chatham?
The United States can now be struck by submarine-launched ballistic missiles from the Barents Sea. Why is the Defence Secretary so confident that underwater systems laid to detect SSBNs threatening the United States will be maintained and upgraded, if technically feasible, by the United States now that the United States does not have the same need? If not, what do we do, and what would be the cost? Is the Defence Secretary justified in placing so much reliance on the combination of Barrier, SSNs and MPAs? How can a combination of SSNs and long-range maritime control aircraft operate coherently in a state of unremitting vigilance in areas controlled by Soviet task forces that will eventually be based on the Kiev class, suitably supported from the USSR?
So much for deterrence, Alliance strategy and burden-sharing. I conclude by saying a few words about arms control. I remind the Minister that concern about arms control has been expressed on both sides of the House this

year in all our defence debates, and that concern has swelled among Conservative Members. More and more hon. Members are becoming increasingly sensitive to the need for arms control. They must see, as we on the Labour Benches see, a want of any such concern on the part of the Ministry of Defence. There is no evidence that it is concerned about arms control. If I am wrong, I shall gladly withdraw that remark. There is nothing to match the concern that was expressed by the right hon. Member for Sidcup.

Mr. Blaker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that for two years I took part in the disarmament conference in Geneva and was a member of the team that successfully negotiated the partial nuclear test ban treaty and went to Moscow to conclude it. Can the hon. Gentleman match that?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Duffy: Then how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that concern and posture with his present support for Trident? My argument is that Trident is wholly out of tune with the times. It is out of tune with the thinking within the Alliance. We have no supporters in the Alliance for Trident. Not one of our partners in the Alliance wants Trident. They are all concerned that Trident will be at the expense of conventional weaponry.

Sir Patrick Wall: The hon. Gentleman will know that the United States has said that it wants us to have Trident, because it is a considerable reinforcement of the nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Duffy: I think that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) will agree that the United States also wants us to provide more surface ships. We do not believe that we can do both. Our order of priorities is surface ships rather than Trident. Moreover, we believe that our view is shared outside the House, and certainly it has been confirmed by opinion polls. That view is held not just by people on the Left or by political parties. Concern is felt in Churches and trade unions, and and now it is extending to local authorities. I fear that some local authorities are so outraged by the Government's attitude to Trident that their antagonism towards the Government's Trident policy is affecting their attitude towards conventional weapons and to the visits of Armed Services careers officers. I understand why that is happening, although I regret it.

Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that there is deep feeling in the country for disarmament, but will he make it clear whether he is talking about multilateral disarmament or the unilateral disarmament about which some Members of the Opposition Front Bench have spoken?

Mr. Duffy: I am talking about the Labour Party's policy, which is multilateral disarmament. The defence review does not easily fit into our deterrent policy or the deterrent policy of the Alliance. It upsets it and throws it off balance. Trident, more than any other factor, is responsible for upsetting the deterrent posture. On the question of Alliance strategy and burden-sharing, the Government's devotion to Trident is upsetting the division of task principle that, because of budgetary constraints, needs to be applied and rigorously exercised throughout the Alliance. The defence review, especially the priority given to Trident—it is regarded as a sacred cow by the


Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence—acts as more than an irritant and an upsetting factor in the area of arms control and disarmament. It cannot easily be reconciled to the times, to public opinion and, increasingly, to the mood of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I fully understand why the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) felt able to make a rather long speech. If other hon. Members follow his example, not many will be called.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am not sure why the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) felt it necessary to make such a long speech. I shall try to be both briefer and better tempered than he was. When he reads his speech, he may regret much of it.

Mr. Duffy: No, never.

Mr. Onslow: It would be better to return to the matter in hand.
I wish to begin my speech with the subject of dockyards. Most hon. Members will be aware that the Select Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman recently took evidence on this subject. We had five sessions of evidence, including three from the Ministry of Defence. We saw both the industrial and the non-industrial trade unions, and British Shipbuilders, and had the advantage of hearing evidence from Sir John Mallabar, whose name will be familar to many.
I found it surprising that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) appeared to be unaware of the evidence and had not made any efforts to obtain it. The evidence was taken in public and published, and many of my hon. Friends have read it with care. If at any time the hon. Gentleman wishes to do a little more homework and asks me for information on the subject I shall be happy to oblige him. He will make a better speech if he does a little more work.
The evidence did not lead to any conclusions in the form of a report. The Committee was simply trying to help the House by exploring the subject. We were fundamentally unsatisfied with some of the evidence during our inquiry into the White Paper. We felt that the officials could have told us more. The Committee wanted to find out whether that was the case, and in a sense it proved to be so.
The subject of the dockyards is integral to the whole question that the House is discussing today, namely, the future of the Navy. The Committee has laid before the House evidence which I hope will be of benefit to it. I must in particular commend my hon. Friends from the Medway ports, who helped us by contributing their questions. I hope that our evidence will educate and elevate the level of debate now that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench.
Because there is no formal report, although I chair the Committee I cannot represent a Committee view. Some of my comments do not necessarily represent the views of every other member of the Committee. I offer my comments as my impression of most of what we were told and the conclusions that I drew from that.
The most important conclusion is that the dockyard problem is a crucial problem but not a new one. When Sir

John Mallabar gave evidence he told us that if his recommendations had been implemented 10 years ago, as they could have been, at least one dockyard would have closed because the productivity of the four dockyards would have so increased that it would not have been necessary to keep all of them in operation.
I remind the hon. Member for Hamilton of another fact. Six years ago the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee reached a firm conclusion on the same subject. It laid before the House a firm recommendation that at least one yard should be closed, and soon. Therefore, the position confronting us today is not new.
The reasons why decisions have not been taken are fairly familiar, and some of them are political. Governments of both parties have shied away from making themselves unpopular, until now. I am not necessarily glad to say that this Government have bitten on the bullet, but at least they have, and that should be recognised.
The position described in the Speed report cannot be ignored by the House. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hamilton has read it. I see that he has it with him. On page 8, chapter 3, headed
The mismatch between load and capacity
it states:
The most immediate and pressing problem facing the dockyards is the decline in their ability to meet the needs of the Royal Navy.
At the end of chapter 3, on page 10, it states:
The effective support of the Fleet is already at risk and unless ways can be quickly found of increasing capacity and reducing load in order to achieve a reasonable balance, the strength and effectiveness of the Fleet will be seriously reduced. To do nothing is not an option.
I hope that thus far, at least, the House is with me. Until now, the size of the fleet has been, to a large extent, dictated by the incapacity of the dockyards, by the time that they have taken to refit ships, and by the time that they have taken to return vessels to operational service. The size of the fleet has been determined by the ability of the dockyards to deal with the work placed upon them. Nothing in the evidence given to us either from the unions or from the Ministry of Defence gave me confidence that there was anything in the Speed report or elsewhere that was likely to produce so dramatic or so sudden an increase in productivity, such a marvellous transformation, that we could say with confidence that the dockyards could pull their weight and maintain a fleet of the current size. Perhaps in the process one may contract or close. We cannot allow the capability of the dockyards to determine the size of the fleet. If we did, a tremendous waste of money would be involved.
The average naval ship spends 28 per cent. of its life in dockyards. The Speed report suggests that the size of the fleet could be reduced from 67 to 58 vessels by adopting a policy of short-lifing. That is a necessary approach to the problem. Most members of the Committee were attracted, as were the Government, by the movement towards a short-lifing policy. The Government's announcement to maintain all four dockyards was a mistake and should not have been made before the matter had been thought through.
A second factor that has been ignored in the debate is the change that has taken place as a result of technological advances. There has been a change in the potential battle on the North Atlantic. When we are confronted, as I believe we are, with the facts that sheer cost is increasing the difficulty of keeping a fleet in being, that the cost of


the air defence of that fleet exceeds the cost of the air defence of the United Kingdom, that merchant ships are capable of higher sustained speeds than in the days of the convoys in the last war, that frigates might have considerable difficulty in keeping up with convoys, and that the range from which Russian submarines can attack the convoys or warships and the speed with which they can move have vastly increased, it is right to look thoroughly at the tactics that we have inherited from the past—namely, the convoy system.
I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said about defence in depth. The concept of righting a forward battle to defend as much as possible of the United Kingdom—Iceland—Greenland gap to keep Russian ships away from the South Atlantic and to maintain it as a safe passage for merchant ships coming by the Azores route to reinforce Europe makes sense, given the sort of war in which we could be involved in the North Atlantic and the sort of resources that we could deploy.
There are those who ask "Where do merchant ships fit into this? Is it not a risk for them to travel on their own?" They may be right. However, it is possible to move in the direction of providing them with local defences, such as on-board helicopters, following up the "Arapahoe" project, and installing electronic defences that will deflect missiles that might be levelled against them. Admiral Sir Ian McGech has recently written a very interesting paper which touches on this topic, and I commend it to the hon. Member for Hamilton. I am giving the hon. Gentleman quite a reading list for the holiday. I hope that he is grateful to me.

Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is intent on educating me. May I educate him? I draw his attention to paragraph 329 of the Defence Estimates, which were published in April over the signature of the new Secretary of State. The paragraph states:
The conventional defence of Central Europe depends crucially on transatlantic reinforcement and resupply.
I do not see anything in the Select Committee's report that questions that assessment. What blinding revelation has come to the hon. Gentleman that enables him to defend the Government's change of mind since the Estimates were published in April?

Mr. Onslow: It seems that I have been going too fast for the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he had some knowledge of the basics of the problem. I shall slow down and speak in shorter words. I have said nothing that indicates that I do not believe that the Atlantic needs to be kept clear for resupply. I have said that the means of so doing have to change and that the methods of so doing must adjust to the menace that our enemies may bring against us. If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech during the recess, I think that he will find that I have accurately paraphrased my words. I shall not put the argument a third time if he has not understood it now.
I must add this. This debate and the defence review have taken place against a background of fairly intensive lobbying on the part of Service interests. We would be mugs if we did not recognise that. It is not beyond our knowledge that senior naval officers have been encouraging one another, and perhaps their retired colleagues, to fight for the Navy's share of the cake. I do not take the view that the articles by Mr. Desmond Wettern

are entirely the product of his own fertile imagination. I think that some of them may have had their origins rather closer to Whitehall than Fleet Street.
We should not ignore the fact that there has been a strong and determined attempt by the Navy to fight its corner. I do not necessarily blame naval officers for that. However, the background has to be seen for what it is. It became even clearer in the speech made in another place on Monday by Lord Hill-Norton. The kindest thing that I can say about that speech is that its language was extravagant—

Mr. Brotherton: And totally accurate.

Mr. Onslow: —and over-ripe, which is a term that my hon. Friend will recognise. It was an inadequate analysis of the problem. Anyone who has read the speech will know that there was not a word in it about the dockyards. To analyse and to criticise the Government's policy without referring to the fundamental problem puts the admiral into the category in which he put the Government. I think that he used the word "superficial". It was not the best speech in the debate that took place in another place, and it must have done damage to the morale of the Navy. If officers of such seniority take the view that they are free to criticise on grounds that are inadequate, and that they are free to accuse the Government of destroying the Navy without properly analysing the problem, they must take the consequences. It is a shame that the speech was made, even though there is one passage in it with which I agree—the noble Lord's comment on Trident. He referred to it
as the corner-stone of our defence policy."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 1981; Vol.423, c.24.]
He said that it was right and essential that it should go ahead. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Attercliffe did not notice that.
It is true that Lord Carver spoke out against it. He called it—

Mr. Robertson: Unnecessary and undesirable.

Mr. Onslow: I shall try to find the passage, as I wish to quote the noble Lord accurately. May I stress to the hon. Member for Hamilton that it is important to quote accurately?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) strays too far, I must remind him that it is not in order to quote from a speech made by a Member of another place unless that Member happens to be a Minister.

Mr. Onslow: It is a good thing that you did not tell me about that sooner, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you had done so, I might have been hard put to it to keep going.

Mr. Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) cast the aspersion that I had not quoted accurately. I understood that the rules of order did not permit one to quote from debates made in another place or to criticise them at the same time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is correct.

Mr. Onslow: I am delighted to have had the help of the hon. Gentleman for a change. The words that Lord Carver used to describe Trident were "unnecessary" and "undesirable".
The hon. Member for Hamilton told us that he was the first Opposition spokesman to address the House on defence to have been born since the war. I hope that I shall not bore him with the following story. I met Lord Carver for the first time in 1946, when I was a young subaltern. I had recently joined my regiment in Germany. Lord Carver was then Brigadier Carver and was commanding the 4th Armoured Brigade. He organised a TEWT—you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is a tactical exercise without troops—on the Dutch-Belgian frontier. It was a re-run of an engagement in which the 4th Armoured Brigade had been involved during the war, and the regiment which I had joined was one of those which had been involved in that piece of unpleasantness.
We had a clear, concise and probably brilliant analysis of the problem. A staff solution by Brigadier Carver was presented to the assembled officers. I thought that it was marvellous. However, there was an elderly major in my unit who clearly wanted to get home to his tea. He intervened and said "That is all very interesting, brigadier, but if you remember, what you actually did was something entirely different." I do not know why those words have stuck in my mind for 35 years. They have come back to me today. They offer a key to Lord Carver's thinking.
I know that Lord Carver is against Trident. I am not sure whether he is against the United Kingdom's having a nuclear capability. However, he is against an independent strategic deterrent and he is against Trident.
If anybody wants to take on Lord Carver on this subject, he has to meet the challenge of producing a set of circumstances in which Trident could fulfil the deterrent role, which is strategic, which is independently British and which, therefore, is essential to us. Conventionally discussion in this area never extends to the possibility of there being a political wedge between ourselves and the Americans. Many consequences would follow from that, including the collapse of the Alliance. For practical purposes, the concept ceases to have reality. However, there is a real scenario that I think the House should consider.
Let us suppose that in a time of tension, if not actual warfare, the Russians succeeded in entirely disrupting all communications between London and Washington. I cannot specify how they might do it. However, they could knock satellites out of the sky and saturate the outer ionosphere with something or other. They could probably do a bit of sabotage. It is a possibility that needs to be considered.
Let us suppose that the Russians, having done that, delivered a note to the British Government that stated "Unless within 12 hours you, the United Kingdom Government, neutralise all NATO bases on your territory, we shall launch a nuclear missile at some point on the British Isles". If we did not have the independent strategic capability to respond, we could make no other response but surrender. That is a situation which can be conceived and that is a situation which we have to confront. If I do not know and cannot say to the House that that is something that could be done, I know and I can say that because it is to the Russians' advantage to try to create such a situation, we cannot dismiss the possibility that they will try it. That is why we need Trident to maintain an adequate philosophy of deterrence.
What we should be talking about today is preventing war. I am not interested in a short war or a long one, conventional war or nuclear war. I do not want war at all. That is why we devote ourselves to defence. That is why some Opposition Members should think a little more before they speak.

Mr. Frank Field: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not follow in detail the argument that we have been having about the dockyards, because, after all, a large number of my hon. Friends presumably wish to speak.
I wish to explore two themes in my short contribution. First, I wish to pose a question: why have we had peace in Western Europe since 1945? Until recently many people would have answered that question by saying "Because we have nuclear weapons". Another answer, and one that the House would do well to consider, is that we have kept peace in Western Europe not because we have had nuclear weapons but because of the balance of our conventional forces. Therefore, one of the arguments that we must consider is the effect that this defence review, and its particular effect on the Navy, has on our conventional capabilities.
There is general agreement in the House that the changes that the Secretary of State is bringing about lower the threshold for nuclear war. Given that that will be the likely result, it is interesting to compare this result with one of the Secretary of State's other great objectives, which is not one that I have heard him mention in the House, but one of which he informs us in the newspapers, although I do not criticise him for doing that.
The Secretary of State says that he fears the peace movement that is gathering pace in this country. He believes that there are dangers in it. Partly for this afternoon's debate, but for other debates, I have been asking large numbers of people in my constituency about their attitude to that matter. I have noticed a change in emphasis from the last time that we saw a mass peace movement. That time could be called, I suppose, the rise of CND Mark 1. At that time there was a considerable amount of straightforward idealism about the wish of people to disarm. This time, there is a great deal more scepticism in their argument.
That scepticism can be expressed in two ways. In my constituency, people are now more aware about the extent of the imperialism of the Russian Government. They are also worried about the increased likelihood of nuclear war coming about by accident. They are therefore concerned about any defence review that puts greater rather than less emphasis on using nuclear weapons. Therefore, if the Secretary of State's aim is to capture the middle ground, he does not seem to be going about it in the most effective way, I read the changes in the defence review as increasing the emphasis that we shall have to put not on only having, but on using nuclear weapons. I believe that this change will have a major effect on the peace movement in our constituencies and will influence the debate on whether and how we disarm in this country.
Linked to that, I wish to pick up one point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) touched, and that is the escalating costs of defence procurement. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)


also mentioned this. I wish to pose a question to the Minister who will wind up the debate and, unlike my hon. Friend, I should be grateful for some answers.
We have heard a great deal recently about the escalating costs of extending the life of Polaris. In the debate on the defence review at the beginning of July the Secretary of State tried to calm our fears by drawing a distinction between having a defence procurement that is partly dependent on other countries and one that is very much under our control or under the control of our allies and of which we can be certain.
The increased costs of extending the life of Polaris grew like Topsy. Not in this House, but elsewhere, the Secretary of State said that the programme had gone bananas. If the cost of Trident goes bananas, what will be the Government's response? Will they tell the House that they will cut our conventional forces even further? Will the Royal Navy be marked out again for more cuts, or will the Government ask for an even bigger increase in the real defence budget of this country? We need to know the answer to that.

Mr. Buck: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting muddled. I hope that he will forgive me if I have misunderstood him. The original Polaris programme did not escalate in price. It is one of the few defence expenditures that have not done so. The Chevaline updating escalated the costs, but not as much as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Field: I was referring to extending the life of Polaris and the period that we are in now. That was described by the Secretary of State as a programme the cost of which had gone bananas. I was wondering what would happen if the same happened with the Trident programme.

Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. The important thing is not to try to fudge the extension of Polaris with a Chevaline-type answer. I shall not say which Government is to blame for that. That is what cost £1 billion in escalating cost, whereas the Polaris programme, planned and purchased from the United States, was on cost. Trident is being purchased and planned under the same system as Polaris. That is its merit.

Mr. Field: That is one answer that is put forward, but it does not seem to tally with some of the earlier interventions of the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates). Those interventions suggested that he expected the cost of the programme to grow, and that he expected the Government to come back with a defence review within 12 or 18 months, and that further cuts in the conventional programme would be made. He expected the Government to put forward that option or one that asked for increased defence spending in real terms. This, then, is the first theme which I wish to explore. How we answer my question on why we have had peace in Western Europe since 1945 depends to a large extent on how we view today's debate on the Royal Navy in particular and how we respond to the Government's defence review in general.
Secondly, I shall pick up a theme which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put with considerable force when we debated the defence review: is the assumption that the next war will be a short war correct? His argument was that the next war, if it comes,

will be a long one. If it is long, we must raise questions about our shipbuilding capacity. I happily declare an interest. I have the honour to represent a shipbuilding constituency. Therefore, the words that I now offer the House are of special relevance.
What we are looking for at some stage, if not during the winding-up speech on the debate, is a statement on the effect of the defence review on British Shipbuilders. Most hon. Members will be aware of the changes which the last Government and this Government brought in in size of our shipbuilding capacity. The thread that linked the programmes of both Governments was an agreement that a large Navy budget should tide British Shipbuilders over this transition period. Indeed, trade union agreement to a considerable rundown in the size of the labour force was won only because it was to be cushioned by the size of the Navy procurement from British Shipbuilders.
I understand that British Shipbuilders has again submitted a corporate plan for the coming year. Presumably that plan is based on expectations of considerable orders from the Navy. The Minister made general statements about orders at some stage in the future but he must be more specific. We should be told about the effect that the defence review will have not only on the Navy's capabilities but on the corporate plan submitted by British Shipbuilders. In particular, how will it affect the size of the British shipbuilding industry? That question is important if one explores the theme of the right hon. Member for Down, South in the debate on July 7—that the next war will be a long one rather than a short one.
If British Shipbuilders does not get the support that it expects from the Navy department, there will be further considerable cutbacks in shipbuilding capacity. If that occurs, how will British Shipbuilders stand in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, which imposed a duty on British Shipbuilders to have regard to Britain's defence requirements?
If British Shipbuilders is disappointed with the size of the Navy department order book over the next couple of years, and if it is forced to cut back on shipbuilding capability, which may lead to the closure of some yards, will it then be in a position to fulfil that part of the Act? Are the Government concerned about that, and are they having discussions about it? If so, what can they tell the House?
In this debate and others, as well as in the press, there have been suggestions that the defence review and its effect on the Navy will lead to the closure of some yards. The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) made some comments from a sedantary position about shipbuilding capability in Birkenhead. I hope that the Hansard reporters did not pick up the hon. Gentleman's interventions. Therefore I shall not repeat them, even though they were serious.
I wish to refer to the success of Cammell Laird. I should also like to show how in this and other areas one Department of Government has no respect for what other Departments are trying to achieve. We may disagree strongly, even with considerable verbal violence, with what the Government are trying to do with the economy. Be that as it may, the one item that has emerged from the Prime Minister's statements is that the policy aims to get British industry efficient. In those circumstances, if an industry, or part of an industry, was trying to respond to that plea, one would have thought that the Government would support it, rather than penalise it.
The only major order in the shipyard at Birkenhead is for a type 42 frigate, which was expected to be built within five years. It now looks as though it will be built within four years. I suspect that if hon. Members worked in a shipyard where most of the berths were empty, and with little work on the order book, they would try to stretch the time to build that ship rather than to shorten it. If our aim is to have a shipbuilding industry that is efficient, effective and competitive, should not the performance of the Birkenhead yard be rewarded, rather than penalised?
Any time that the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks wishes to visit the Birkenhead yard, I shall be happy to accompany him. In the meantime, I leave the House with a more general thought. This Navy debate will have crucial spill-over effects on the shipbuilding industry. It is therefore important for the Government to spell out specifically the effect on each yard if their proposals for the Navy are carried out.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will not expect me to agree with his suggestion that since the last war peace has been maintained by conventional weapons. I am convinced that peace has been maintained by strategic nuclear weapons. Therefore, I am entirely in favour of Trident.
I assure the hon. Gentleman—I am certain that I speak on behalf of every Conservative Member—that we are all absolutely against war and we shall do all we can to prevent it and to deter other people from starting it. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about shipbuilding capacity, but I shall return to that subject later.
For centuries, the Navy has been said to be Britain's sure shield. That is still true today. Therefore, this is an important debate. But where are the Opposition? Where are the Liberals? Where are the Social Democrats? [HON. MEMBERS: "In Croydon."]

Mr. Roger Moate: Just for the record, perhaps my hon. Friend should emphasise that only two Labour Back Benchers are present, and no Liberals or Social Democrats at all.

Mr. Pink: The Opposition seem rather absorbed with the whole question of Trident. I am uncertain why that should be so. There is, of course, the argument that without Trident we could afford more conventional weapons, but that is not materially true because the effect of Trident as a deterrent far outweighs the deterrent effect of the extra conventional weapons that could be bought with the same money. Alternatively, is it merely because, like the CND, they are against all nuclear weapons? I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) who said that we should have a separate and independent nuclear deterrent.
I thank the Minister for his speedy reply to my letter about dockyard land. I received it only this morning, and I am sure he will appreciate that it will take much study. No doubt I shall come back to him on the subject at a later date.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has produced a plausible division of resources between the three Services. The trouble is that too little cash is being

provided for Britain's defence. That is why we are to suffer the contraction in the Navy outlined in the present proposals.
As I said, I am in favour of Trident. I am entirely in favour of stopping the major modernisation of warships at half life. I am entirely in favour of simpler and cheaper ships to replace our present fleet. However, I still have three worries. The first relates to manpower. The Navy is to lose 10,000 men. Two years ago, we asked for more pay for the Navy because men were leaving so fast that we could not man the fleet. We were worried because recruiting and re-engagement were poor.
We are now telling the Navy, "Ten thousand of you are going". That will mean fewer promotions and fewer chances of a permanent career. What careers master in any school could possibly recommend a schoolboy to join the Navy for a permanent career when we see this kind of thing happening?
The Secretary of State has emphasised the cost of materials and of the new weapons. He has opted for weapons as against men. I believe that he is wrong. Comparatively speaking, ships, tanks and aircraft can be built fairly quickly—certainly far more quickly than one can train the men to man them. It is not just a question of manning the fleet or the weapons. It is a matter of training the new intake in an emergency. I therefore believe that we should stop reducing the number of men in the fleet and even increase it.
My second worry is ships. The Secretary of State seems to be sold on the idea that we shall have a quick war. The last two wars were both supposed to be over by Christmas, but they lasted for years. The same will happen again. The Secretary of State is right, of course, that if we do not stop the war on the Western front we shall be finished. The war will be over. He has not, however, answered the next question.
Having stopped the enemy on the Western front, as I presume my right hon. Friend is determined to do, how will the reinforcements and materials of every kind be brought from America and the wide world? They must come by sea. There must therefore be proper convoy protection. History has taught us for centuries that the only way to get merchant ships to this country safely is in convoys. In the First World War, we tried to do without. In the Second World War, we tried to make do with hunter-killer groups. They were failures. In the end, the answer is always the same. There must be a proper close escort for the convoys.
Weapons and methods change, principles remain. There will have to be the outer screen of Nimrods, the close escort of surface ships and aircraft with the convoys, as well as the hunter-killer groups. However much it costs, if we are to survive in any war we must have the ships to preserve the convoys.
The Minister also referred to the number of peacetime jobs that the Navy undertakes. At present, there is the Gulf and Belize. There are a hundred and one little jobs as well— earthquakes, and so on. It is no good saying that we can send a nuclear submarine to do those jobs. The presence of a nuclear submarine is nothing like so effective from the point of view of morale as a surface ship flying the White Ensign. I therefore appeal to the Minister to think again about the reduction in ships.
Finally, I am worried about the dockyards. Naturally, I am worried from a constituency point of view, but that is not my only worry. I am worried because, as my hon.
Friend the Member for Woking clearly and conclusively showed, no fleet can operate without the proper back-up of the dockyards. The Secretary of State has said that he can operate the fleet with two dockyards. I cannot dispute that, as I do not know enough of the detail to say whether he could or could not do that. Even if he can maintain the present fleet or the future reduced fleet, I am convinced that two dockyards could not sustain the fleet in an emergency.
No doubt Devonport and Rosyth can carry out ordinary refits and repairs, but what happens in an emergency, when there is an accident in the Channel, for example? If one of Her Majesty's ships is involved in a collision, that ship must be repaired straight away. There can be no delay. Where is the space in Devonport dockyard to carry out repairs of that kind? It simply does not exist. I therefore believe that it is essential that the four dockyards that we now have should be maintained, although I appreciate that there will be some redundancies. If the recommendations of the Keith Speed report are carried out there are bound to be redundancies in the interests of efficiency.
I return to the hon. Member for Birkenhead. I should like to see warships again being built in the Royal dockyards. I do not mean that the ships in the normal programme should be built there. I am talking about ships to replace those which normally would have undergone modernisation and long refits—three or four each year in Portsmouth. The replacements for those ships should be built in Portsmouth and Chatham.
That would be healthy not only for the Royal dockyards, because there would be yardsticks on the costing of warship building; it would be healthy for the private yards, because, again, there would be a yardstick of costs. For the same reasons, it would also be useful if more repair work went out to private yards. There would then not only be yardsticks on costing but also experience of warship repair and construction in private yards. It is comparatively easy to repair a merchant ship, but today's warships are so complicated that few private yards could at present undertake that work.
I therefore appeal to the Minister to tell the Cabinet that we want more money for our vital defence needs and that the Navy must not be cut in the way that has been proposed.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: In deference to the appeal made a short time ago by your deputy, Mr. Speaker, about the need for short speeches, I hope to be the model of brevity.
I should say to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) that they delude themselves if they believe that the difficulties now facing the Royal Navy are the result of the escalating technological cost of providing new weapons systems. That plays a major part in the problem facing the Navy, of course, but real difficulties facing the Navy today derive directly from the Government's decision last year to invest £5 billion, £6 billion—or is it even £7billion?—in the Trident system. If the Government had decided instead to extend the life of Polaris, it is ray conviction that the Navy would not be facing the difficulties that it now faces.
I shall confine my remarks to two aspects. I make no apology for raising a matter which affects several hundreds

of my constituents. It is not only the dockyards, the Medway towns or Portsmouth which will feel the brunt of the cuts being made in naval expenditure. The effect will be felt throughout the defence industries. I am concerned primarily with the high technology industry which provides radar equipment for the Navy. Specifically, I am concerned about the jobs which are involved in the Marconi company, in my constituency.
The cuts that have been made will seriously affect jobs in Leicester and Chelmsford. A decision was taken that the development programmes for the anti-air warfare capability of the type 42 destroyer would be cancelled. That directly affects jobs in Leicester and it will have a serious impact on job opportunities in Gateshead—an area where there is already 17 per cent. male unemployment, excluding school leavers and young people. That decision, arising from the defence review, will also have further serious repercussions.
In addition, I have been discussing with the Ministry of Defence the improved Sea Wolf point defence system. It was not until recently that British Aerospace was recognised as the prime contractor for the Sea Wolf defence system. Previously, a collection of firms put their equipment together to form the system. For some unaccountable reason the Ministry of Defence now looks upon British Aerospace as the prime contractor for the system.
British Aerospace has been working for some time on developing new lightweight Sea Wolf point defence equipment. As I understand it, British Aerospace decided unilaterally that the tracker system for the Sea Wolf would be acquired from the Dutch company, Signaal, a subsidiary of Philips. It decided, to the exclusion of Marconi, that the Signaal tracking equipment would be used for this British defence system.
If there is one thing that I believe in, it is that we should support British industry, even if it costs a little more. I recall the Prime Minister saying in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) a few weeks ago that the Government would prefer to buy British equipment even when that equipment cost just a little more. That is what I want to see. I want to see the emphasis in the Ministry of Defence on the purchase of British equipment.
I should like to quote from an article in the Financial Times of 18 May, which is significant to the discussion about the possibility of the Navy using Dutch equipment. It states:
The Dutch Government announced it will place a 700 million florin"—
that is equivalent to £135 million—
order for 841 light tanks with a Dutch consortium, despite a 100 million florin lower offer from an American company.
So the Dutch Government have decided that in order to preserve and secure Dutch industry they will pay more for this equipment than it would otherwise cost. I am not criticising the Dutch Government for so doing. Indeed, I applaud them, but I want to see the same sort of aggressive purchasing policy by the Ministry of Defence. I want the Ministry of Defence to say that it will buy British equipment even when it costs more. Let us have no more nonsense about going overseas for the purchase of equipment that can be produced satisfactorily here at the same price and in the same time, and that is of the same capability.
The MOD is currently considering a type 996 radar equipment for the Navy. The Ministry has requested that, in addition to Marconi, Plessey, Mullard and Ferranti should enter into competition to determine the best equipment for the Navy. But Mullard and Ferranti are themselves quoting for the use of equipment purchased overseas. Mullard is considering the use of Signaal equipment and Ferranti is quoting for the use of Selenia equipment from Italy. I hope that the Minister who now carries the prime responsibility for procurement for the three Services will take steps to insist that the equipment used by the British Forces will be purchased from British industry unless British industry is in no way able to provide it.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South made a strong case for the retention of four home dockyards. In my view, no valid case can be made for the retention of four home dockyards, especially at a time when the size of the fleet is decreasing. If previous Governments had grasped the nettle, one of those four dockyards might well have been closed long ago.
I am not arguing whether the closure should be at Chatham, Portsmouth, Devonport or anywhere else. All that I am saying is that it is rather extravagant for the fleet to be using four home dockyards. There is a good case for the work to be done in perhaps three dockyards. But, as Admiral Pillar explained to the Defence Select Committee last week, there is a risk in the use of just the two dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth, and the Government must take full responsibility for that risk.
In my view, the dockyards are totally inefficient, and it is not the fault of those who are responsible for running them. The management in the dockyards is as good as and probably better than that of many of the main British companies. But in the management of dockyards the people concerned are constrained by the overload of the Civil Service Department that is sitting on their shoulders. We still have the crazy, anachronistic system in the dockyards of referring to so-called industrial and non-industrial workers. They are workers. Their task is to refit and equip ships for the Royal Navy to use at sea. Therefore, there is no distinction. The reference to industrial and non-industrial civil servants causes friction in the dockyards.
Another factor that does not make for the efficient running of the dockyards is that the managers at Devonport, Chatham, Rosyth, and so on are restricted in the types of decision that they can make. I shall tell a simple story, which happens to be true. It occurred at Rosyth. A welder who was working in cramped and overheated conditions, in hot weather, could get the general manager's approval for a supply of lemonade. However, he requested orangeade instead of lemonade and the general manager had no authority to authorise the change. That is petty, but it is typical of the type of thing going on in the dockyards.
If Chatham is to close and if Portsmouth is to be run down, this may be a golden opportunity to look at dockyard structures. Our dockyards could be as efficient as dockyards anywhere else in the world. They could be as efficient as any of our big commercial manufacturing companies. However, they will never be efficient when they are subjected to the disciplines and rigours of the Civil

Service Department. We have an opportunity to look again at the industrial structure of our dockyards. We can change them and make them far more efficient.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I appeal to hon. Members to help each other by keeping their speeches brief. Only they can help each other, although I, of course, am responsible for the order in which hon. Members are called.

Mr. W. Benyon: The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) will find ready listeners among Conservative Members in his plea for defence contracts to be placed with British industry. Many of us feel strongly about that and are prepared to go down that road.
This debate is about the Navy. I offer hon. Members the following reminder:
It is upon the Navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this Realm do chiefly attend.
Those words were written in 1652 and are as true today as they were when they were written. They are true because we are dependent upon overseas trade. They are true because the ultimate defence of these islands must depend upon a seaborne defence. They are also true, in modern times, in relation to the NATO Alliance, which is the cornerstone of our defence policy.
In paragraph 6 of the White Paper the Government describe their new defence policy as
a fresh and radical look at the defence programme.
Whether or not that is true, it is evident that the maritime interest has lost out. That is particularly true in one vital aspect, which has been touched on by several hon. Members. In any confrontation with the Soviet Union we should not be able to keep the Atlantic supply lines open. That is the most important point. The Soviets are in the ascendancy in terms of naval strength. The gap is widening day by day. That is equally true in relation to their land and air power. In every arm of maritime warfare—whether maritime aircraft, conventional or nuclear submarines, all types of surface ship, or, particularly, amphibious vessels—the Soviet Union has a massive lead. That lead is increasing. Indeed, we ignore its lead in amphibious vessels at our peril. All those who take an interest in defence matters know the figures and know that the Soviet Union has a massive lead. Therefore, I shall not weary the House by repeating them.
The massive development of Soviet land and air power can be explained. I do not accept the explanation, but it can be explained by the Soviets' fear of an attack across their land borders. However, we must ask ourselves why the Soviet Union has created such a massive maritime capability. What is its purpose? We are discussing a land-locked power, which is self-sufficient in raw materials, food, and so on. Why is it creating that capability? Its purpose can only be offensive.
I accept that it is wrong to try to fight the battles of today in terms of the past. It is wrong to envisage modern warfare in terms of the weapons and tactics of a previous conflict. Therefore, the first sentence of paragraph 22 of the White Paper is correct. It states:
All the major weapons platforms of maritime warfare—aircraft, surface ships and submarines—have a continuing part to play, complementing one another.


However, Nilmods and helicopters are relatively soft targets. Both are essential to anti-submarine warfare, but their lack of self-defence has important implications for where and when they can be used.
Nowadays, it is rightly said that the large helicopter has an anti-submarine role that is equivalent to that of a modern frigate, but it lacks endurance and therefore needs suitable airfields—whether ashore or afloat—to operate from. I understood that that was always the justification for new carriers. However, those are dismissed without much qualification in paragraph 27. I still await a proper explanation for that action. This leaves a dangerous and noticeable gap in our defences. We urgently need smaller, cheaper, hard-hitting vessels that can be produced quickly. I agreed with only one part of the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). He mentioned that there was a strong impression that this was a short-war strategy, which had been decided on political rather than defence criteria.
As time goes on, the dangerous overall imbalance of sea power will become more obvious to all. That will inevitably result in an extension of Soviet influence throughout the world, a loss of morale in the Services, and in the Alliance as a whole, and in a consequent increase in the danger of an all-out conflict which we all wish to avoid. Some people are contemptuous of the principle of showing the flag. However, the Soviets are not. They know how effective that is and they use it to the full. Unfortunately, submarines cannot show the flag well.
There is an inescapable choice. We must either spend more or—if that is impossible—reorganise the Alliance. It seems crazy that this country should be committed to a major defence effort on the Continent, at the expense of a maritime capability that we undertake superlatively well and of which we have great experience. This is one of the few areas in which we are ahead both in equipment and training.
The short-tern political need to maintain our section of the front in Germany has resulted in a stopgap solution of concealed cuts, which are falling, in particular, on the Royal Navy. I fear that our European allies will appreciate what has happened and will be quick to copy our example. with very dangerous results.
I wish to leave the House with one message, which is that we need to take a truly fresh and radical look at the defence effort of the Alliance as a whole, which includes the question of specialisation roles within NATO, so that the sum total of conventional effort may be better balanced and more attuned to the needs of the next decade.

Mr. Antony Buck: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), who is a distinguished ex-naval officer. I agree very much with his remarks. I also listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), although I would have had much greater confidence in the posture of the Opposition if some of the speeches made from the Back Benches above the Gangway had been made from the Front Bench. A most robust attitude was adopted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), my successor as Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Navy) who is not at the moment in his place.
The hon. Member for Hamilton talked about the need for a big expansion in the shipbuilding programme for the

surface fleet. That was the purport of his remarks. The hon. Gentleman refused to give way very often during his speech but I am willing to give way if he wishes to correct my interpretation. I am interested to know whether he speaks with the authority that one usually associates with right hon. and hon. Members addressing the House from the Dispatch Box and whether the official Opposition are committed to a major expansion of the shipbuilding programme. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view, but it would be interesting to know if it is indeed the posture of the official Opposition that there should be a massive increase in our conventional maritime capability.
It is known that the Opposition do not want us to have Trident. If, however, they believe that the saving on the cost of Trident would enable them to embark upon a massive increase in conventional shipbuilding capacity, they delude themselves. I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman is committing the Opposition to the sort of increase in the shipbuilding programme that his remarks seemed to indicate. I gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I apologise if he was offended because I did not give way. I endeavour to give way as often as possible. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between those hon. Members who wish me to give way and others who are simply disagreeing with what I say. I have searched diligently through previous Navy debates as part of the background for this debate. One characteristic of Conservative Members when in Opposition was to say as little as possible about their intentions. They made a great virtue of not saying what they would do on coming to power. My purpose today has been to examine critically the Government's defence posture as proposed in the defence review and to point out the inconsistencies between what they are now doing and what they stated in Opposition.

Mr. Buck: I am moderately regretful about giving way to the hon. Gentleman. One criticism that I will not tolerate from the Opposition is that Conservative Members had indulged in concealed politics in defence matters. When the Labour Government were in power they inherited the possibility of updating the Polaris system by Chevaline. They spent tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on updating Polaris. They were right to do so but wrong not to reveal it to the House. I shall not accept from Opposition Members, especially those on the Front Bench, any suggestion that we have not indulged in open politics while they did. The reverse is true. The Labour Government performed a massive con trick in updating the Polaris deterrent.

Mr. Chris Patten: Even the Cabinet was not informed.

Mr. Buck: I understand from my hon. Friend that even the Labour Cabinet was not informed. My hon. Friend has perhaps more effective moles than I have in this sphere. I was not aware that even the Cabinet had not been told. I think that a small sub-committee of the Cabinet had been told.
I commend the posture of my Government, which has been far more orientated towards open government.
My happiest time in politics was the short period I spent serving as Minister for the Royal Navy. During that short


period of about 20 months I had the privilege of visiting every type of ship in the Royal Navy. I found an expertise and professionalism that cannot be excelled. Through the courtesy of my Government and the Labour Government I have been able to continue updating myself through frequent visits to Her Majesty's ships. The expertise of the Royal Navy today is as high as ever.
Morale has also been very good for a considerable period since we Conservatives came to office. When we took office morale in the Royal Navy, as in all the Armed Services, was very low. That was because of the pay issue. Undoubtedly, the Royal Navy, like the other Armed Services, had fallen far behind in pay. It is very much to the credit of the Government that the first action they took was concerned with the pay of the Armed Services. On visits to ships or barracks, one expects to hear grumbles. It would be artificial if such grumbles were not found. However, those hon. Members who visited Navy and military units in the last days of the previous Government found a real outpouring among the middle ranks, chief petty officers and officers—over pay. Our Government dealt with that issue along with police pay even before the Queen's speech. We were right to do so.
This proved a great boost to morale and staunched the flow of middle management personnel, if I can so describe them, from the Royal Navy and the other Services. Morale remained high for a while. In the immediate past, however, morale in the Royal Navy has not been so good due to the extended review that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench have been conducting.
The most debilitating thing for the Armed Services, as in any other sphere of activity, is uncertainty. That uncertainty has to a considerable extent now been brought to an end. However, I view the decisions of my right hon. Friend with mixed feelings. I commend very much the Government's courage in taking the bold course and pledging an increase in defence expenditure in real terms by 3 per cent. for a further extended period.
I would be glad to hear whether the Opposition Front Bench likewise commends this bold decision. The Opposition talk about building new classes of ships and building them especially in areas of political sensitivity. Are they prepared to commit themselves in the same way as the Government to the extension of an increase in NATO defence expenditure in real terms for this further period?

Mr. Mates: Not only can we not get a word out of the Opposition Front Bench about their intentions; they voted against the plan when it was put forward by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Buck: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It heightens the point that I was seeking to make. It is interesting to note that the Opposition Front Bench remain firmly seated although I am willing to give way on this point. Now they are talking from a sedentary position.
I should like to compare the overall defence postures of the two parties. Defence expenditure presents difficulties for the Government side and for Opposition Members. They are difficulties of a totally disparate character. There are certainly many Labour supporters in the country and perhaps some Opposition Members who would wish to see a diminution in our defence effort.

There are many in the country and I suspect some in the House—although hon. Members will speak for themselves—whose real defence posture is to send a telegram to the Kremlin saying "I surrender".
I do not accuse the Opposition Front Bench of adopting that posture, but it is certainly adopted by some elements in the Labour Party, including some in my constituency, and I suspect also among hon. Members in the House.
On the other hand, there are in my party, although not I think among any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, whose defence policy goes totally the other way. Some members of my party are even more robust than I on defence matters. Their posture is that there should be only one or two new hospitals every few years and that virtually every penny of national expenditure should be devoted to defence.
Those are the two extremes. I know the posture that I prefer. I prefer a party—I think the country prefers a party—that has an element that perhaps slightly overemphasises the need for expenditure rather than one that says there should be virtually no defence of the realm. But undoubtedly it creates a difficulty for both sides of the House relative to defence matters.
I will cut my remarks short because of the pressure of hon. Members wishing to speak. The Government have striven valiantly to deal with the defence situation. We must start by getting the structure right and that has not been brought much into the debate. We have not yet talked about the nature of defence organisation. It is important to get this right from the top. My right hon. and hon. Friends have not said much about this major reorganisation in the Ministry of Defence. I am a conservative with a small "c" as well as with a large and I am bound to say that there have been certain doubts and hesitations about this reorganisation.
As I said, I was a Defence Minister for only a short time, but it was long enough to know that the single Services valued their Ministers. In my view, it was important that the single Minister should recognise that whilst he was the Minister for a single Service he was an overall Under-Secretary of State for Defence. As I may reveal at a later stage I was myself from time to time not able to agree entirely with the Royal Navy cause on particular matters because I regarded it as my duty to take a slightly more ecumenical approach. I would like to hear from the Minister who is to reply what he thinks about the reorganisation.
The dangers are that what I call the "middle management" in the Services may be looking for other spokesmen outside the ordinary accepted sphere because there are not individual Service spokesmen. There are already signs of individual Services seeking to contact Members of Parliament who may be amicable to their cause. There may be much more of that now that the Services do not have their own Ministers. I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with this question and tell us what the Civil Service support for Ministers will be in future.
In the past, there was an Admiralty Board. Are we still to have one? Are we still to have a Civil Service deputy under-secretary for each Service?
I should like to hear more about the political and supportive structure which is being created in the Ministry of Defence and how my hon. Friends will distribute the duties among it.
Labour Members have talked a great deal about equipment and the necessity for the Services to "buy British". That is an opinion I should be glad to hear emphasised by the Government Front Bench, but of equal importance is the necessity to have within NATO a uniformity of defence procurement. The amount that we lose in efficiency because there is no overall NATO requirement has been estimated in various ways from various sources.
I can perhaps give the example of our torpedoes. I put forward a long time ago the simple idea that as we and Marconi were doing well with a lightweight and fast torpedo, it might be acquired for the whole of NATO, to its and our advantage. As the Americans were, it seemed, ahead of us with their heavyweight torpedo, it appeared a possibility that it would be a fair quid pro quo for NATO's acquiring our lightweight torpedo for us to buy it.
The one thing that I am convinced about and that I hope the whole House will be too is that it is very important for us to have greater uniformity of equipment throughout the whole of NATO.

Mr. Trotter: Will my hon. Friend accept that it is by no means certain that the Americans are ahead of us on a heavyweight torpedo? A good design is being put forward in this country.

Mr. Buck: That may be the case. It is impossible to be absolutely accurate about such matters unless one has the sort of logistic support that no hon. Member has. My idea was that we should produce the lightweight torpedo while the Americans supplied the heavyweight torpedo.
The important considerations are that NATO and the Royal Navy should have the best equipment available and that there should be some reality in the "two-way street". Our American allies pay lip service to that, but most of us would be hard-pressed to think of much that the Americans have bought from us. They bought the Harrier, but after that we would have to struggle to think of any major pieces of equipment that the Americans have purchased.
I promised to be brief and perhaps I have already gone over my time. I commend the Government for what they have done in seeking out the major commitments, to which we must adhere absolutely. They have done some interesting fundamental research, but I offer a word of warning. In the maritime sphere the Government have done as much as their Back Benchers are prepared to tolerate. Indeed, it is possible that they may have gone too far.

Mrs. Fenner: The Government have gone much too far.

Mr. Buck: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) with her constituency responsibilities, feels very deeply about the matter.
It is our tradition to make a contribution in the maritime sphere. It is recognised throughout the Alliance that it is appropriate that different countries should put a different emphasis on the efforts that they deploy to NATO.
I have quoted previously the International Herald Tribune, which said wisely:
If the Alliance is to be effective, each nation must play the role for which it is best suited. In Britain's case that role is the defence of the North Atlantic, including the Iceland Gap through which the United States must resupply its forces in Northern Europe. That means cuts in Britain's naval strength will weaken the Alliance's ability to fight a prolonged eventual war in Europe.

It went on:
If British ships are taken cut of service, there are currently no Allied naval forces to replace them. The United States Navy is stretched so thin and is so undermanned that at the moment it could not possibly fill the gap.
That analysis causes me grave concern. Our history is a maritime history and Conservative Back Benchers will not tolerate any further cuts in our maritime history. Indeed, we look forward to an enhancement of that capacity before many years have passed.

Sir Frederick Burden: At the beginning of the Second World War a signal went out to the Navy which brought applause and celebration. It heralded the fact that Winston Churchill had become First Lord of the Admiralty. I have no doubt that there will be celebrations when a signal is sent out from our ships saying "Thank God Nott has gone". I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be offended by that, but that is how I feel after seeing what has been done to the Navy.
Winston Churchill said that an hon. Member had three responsibilities. The first was to the nation, the second was to his constituency and the third was to his party. During the 31 years that I have been an hon. Member I have found almost invariably that there has been a close community of interest between those three responsibilities.
However, following the recent actions and statements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I have had to look at those responsibilities again. The community of interest has gone. My concerns are the interests of the nation and, secondly, the interests of my constituents. It is utterly and completely wrong, as I said on 20 May, for the Government to cut the surface fleet. It is no less wrong for Chatham dockyard to be closed and for cuts to be made to considerable parts of Portsmouth.
On Wednesday last week I attended the Select Committee meeting with the members of the Committee who had advised the Minister of State and on which he took action. The Select Committee meeting included questions on the closure of Chatham dockyard and the role played by that dockyard in the refuelling and refitting of nuclear submarines. The intention now is to refuel and refit them at Devonport and Rosyth. Devonport will, theoretically, in the not-too-distant future, be able to refuel and refit three SSNs at once, while Rosyth will have its capacity increased to two.
Present at that meeting was Vice-Admiral Sir William Pillar, who is an adviser and the officer-in-charge of fleet support. When giving evidence to the Select Committee at Rosyth last year he said:
I did say at the moment Chatham is working up two streams. Devonport has one and might have the capacity for three". Devonport, of course, has not yet finished a nuclear refit. Chatham's record is very good.
The vice-admiral continued:
I would not pretend that the programme is without risk"—
that is, to throw away the facilities at Chatham—
but the Navy had to find very large savings indeed, and, as you know, it came from cuts in the surface fleet, in naval manpower, and, of course, in the support area.
Mr. Thomas, the chief executive of dockyards, said:
The present task Devonport has is the major refitting of frigates. This is being phased out, so that Devonport can start the so-called three stream refitting of nuclear submarines. There would be labour available for them.
How many frigates are now under refit, and when will that work end so that the work on the three-stream refitting of


nuclear subs can commence? How will the destroyer and frigate refit needs be met if Devonport's capacity is to be phased out and parts of Portsmouth are to be lost? I shall return to the question of Chatham.
If Devonport cannot accept the frigates and the destroyers, and if the port is to carry out work on the nuclear fleet and Chatham dockyard does not exist, where will the work be done? It cannot be done in the commercial yards. The Minister made it clear that the only dockyards that can refit naval vessels—he also included nuclear vessels—are the Royal naval dockyards. The work cannot be done in private yards because of the widespread technical knowledge required to deal with the equipment.
In connection with the closure of Chatham and the transfer of work to Devonport, Vice-Admiral Pillar repeated:
This is a programme not without risk and we were faced with having to make very large savings indeed and to do this I do not think there was much of an alternative".
Such statements are serious. The House, the nation and those engaged in defence should know about them. The fact that the programme is not without risk depends upon Devonport's taking the risk and succeeding. I cannot quantify that risk. The Vice-Admiral added:
Devonport has not yet completed one nuclear refit.
Mr. Thomas, the chief executive officer of the Royal dockyards, said that owing to a major industrial dispute at Devonport
work on Swiftsure may well have been held up for between 12 and 18 months".
What surprised me was that we all assumed that the hold-up would be 12 months. We were told that Swiftsure would not emerge until 1983, but is it not surprising that the chief executive—one of the men advising the Ministry on what it should do about the refitting and refuelling of submarines—could not tell us whether the hold-up was 12 or 18 months due to the industrial dispute? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is all very well for my hon. Friends to exclaim, but that is important. If that happened in private industry, someone's head would roll if there were any common sense.
The Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice Chatham, which has a proven and admittedly good record for refuelling and refitting nuclear submarines, for a questionable and, at present, non-existent facility at Devonport. The vice-admiral agreed that vulnerability in getting the work done satisfactorily was being created simply to save money. When asked whether it was as brutal as that, he replied:
I think it is, yes.
That sums up the vulnerability of our defences.
When asked what would happen if another submarine were added to the fleet, the admiral agreed that he could not guarantee that it would be serviced with those facilities. Throughout all the exchanges the emphasis was on the very considerable risk of closing down the proved refuelling and refitting facilities available at Chatham and concentrating the task at Devonport, where the facilities so far are unproven. It is no good my hon. Friend the Minister shaking his head. I hope that whoever winds up the debate will give us better proof of what is happening than we were given in the previous defence debate.

Mr. Blaker: I was shaking my head at one expression that my hon. Friend used, namely the "very considerable risk". I believe that that phrase was never used in that exchange of evidence.

Sir Frederick Burden: When it was said over and over again that the risk was there, it must have been a rather considerable risk. It was made clear at the public meeting on defence that the talk of improving the start of nuclear submarine refits was meaningless, because it was categorically stated there that the refuelling and refitting time would still be two years, as it is now. We are told that there will be a short saving—the Minister was unable to give the figures today—when the submarines are fitted with the larger reactors. Not one submarine has yet been fitted with a larger refuelling reactor. The reactors must all be installed before the supposed saving will be achieved in refitting time.
If the operational requirements of our hunter-killer submarines are to be assured, all the evidence proves that without the retention of Chatham's nuclear facilities the necessary intention cannot with any certainty be sustained. It cannot be guaranteed.
It has been made clear to us over the past few weeks that the operational efficiency and availability of our nuclear submarine fleet is the cornerstone of our defensive ability in the foreseeable future. It is extraordinary how often what appear to be minor risks turn out to be major catastrophes. That should not be allowed to happen in this instance, because it would put the defence of the nation at risk.
It has been stated that the refitting of frigates and destroyers at Devonport is to be cut and phased out to allow for an increase in the nuclear refitting and refuelling facility. If there is any possibility of war in the next 20 years, the refit facilities for the surface fleet will still be required. If the facilities at Devonport are to be cut, that is all the more reason for using the facilities which exist and which have been most efficient at Chatham, because they will still be required.
The type 23 frigate replacement is still on the design table. If all goes well—and those are the operative words—we are told that the prototype will appear in 1988. However, before it is put into production it will have to undergo sea trials to see whether it matches up to the job for which it is intended. Even if a cheaper hull is put in, if the frigate is to do anything in the present conditions it will have to be equipped with highly sophisticated equipment that will require attention from time to time. I believe that we shall take great risks with the nation's safety if we close Chatham dockyard and phase out the facilities for fleet support which are so essential and which it can provide.
I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that in August of last year a solemn undertaking given at Cabinet level was that the four dockyards would be needed and retained to ensure that the British Navy was given the support that it needed to keep it operational. I believe that those conditions have not changed. I believe, too, that we are taking grave risks by making the cuts that have been announced. It would be wise for the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision in the light of what I believe to be the facts, many of which were brought out at the meeting a week ago between the Secretary of State's advisers and the Select Committee.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I approach the debate with some diffidence because many hon. Members are expert on the Navy. I intend to make a short contribution which will be limited mainly to a constituency issue. Half within my constituency's boundaries is the Yarrow shipyard, which builds warships. It is an important employer of labour and its work force numbers 5,700. The work force is one of considerable skill and sophistication. To put not too blunt a point on it, its future is a matter of real concern in an area of high unemployment.
There will be no dispute that the level of skill and sophistication to which I have referred is largely reflected in the principal product at Yarrow—the type 22 frigate. The unit cost of the product is £120 million and upwards. To the layman that might seem staggering. However, there will be no quarrel when I say that such a craft is highly relevant to our defence needs.
I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that those who believe that there is a need for substantial and effective defence spending see the provision of such defence capability as a sensible use of public money. I do not wish to become involved in arguments about Trident. I merely say, in shorthand, that I am one of those who believe that conventional capacity in the naval sense makes a great deal more sense than the Trident programme that has been advanced by the Government and which I see as a folie de grandeur.
Many sophisticated arguments will be to the effect that the two systems are not incompatible—that we can have an effective conventional naval force and Trident. However, I believe that there is a good deal of special pleading involved in that argument. Inevitably, the one will squeeze the other.
If the conventional programme were slashed to make room for Trident, we should be making a considerable mistake in terms of Atlantic defence, escort duties and so on. The present commitment to NATO of 50 destroyers and frigates should be maintained, and to a high standard. It should not be cut in any way in terms of either numbers or quality.
I recognise that we spend a high proportion of our gross domestic product on defence. The figure is 5·2 per cent. That is high compared with that of many of our NATO Allies. One of the most depressing statistics in the defence review is that of per capita spending. In France 4 per cent. of GDP is spent on defence. Per capita the French are spending more than we spend. That tells us a lot about our sad economic performance, not necessarily over the last two years but over a considerable period. I believe that we should have adequate defence spending but we must spend properly. My reservations are about the way in which the Government are spending the money.
A conventional commitment involves and implies a continuing frigate-building programme. We can argue about the kind of frigate that we need, but there should be agreement that we need a rolling programme of two or three starts a year over a period.
It would be ungracious not to say to the Minister that, as the Member representing an area which staffs the Yarrow yard, am grateful for the type 22 order announced in the recent defence review. It is the seventh of the line. It has made an enormous difference to the atmosphere in the yard and in the area.
By the end of the summer there would have been a gap in work for the steel trades. We would have faced substantial unemployment in an area of genuine sensitivity. I hope that I shall not be thought partisan if I say that we have faced a heavy burden as a result of the recession which followed from the Government's economic and financial policies.
I am not suggesting that the type 22 was the only issue worrying us. We also have a heavy investment in the GRP complex. About £7 million has been spent in Yarrow, giving us a modern facility for making the glass-reinforced plastic-hulled mine hunters. Naturally, I am interested in some continuity to justify that recent level of investment. However, I confess that the arrival of that seventh type 22 on the line was a considerable relief to the work force and to everyone living in that part of Glasgow.
I hope that the Minister will not think that I am being difficult, but I must point out that worry still exists about the future. We know from what the Secretary of State for Defence said in the debate on 19 May that he is thinking in terms of a type 23 rather than a continuation of the type 22. He said that defence against submarines can be achieved by the use of the Nimrod 2 and the hunter-killer submarine. If the type 23 is to be proceeded with—we now know that the design work is under way—it will be a much cheaper and less sophisticated vessel. According to the Secretary of State for Defence, it is a platform for towing subsonar and therefore it does not need the high unit costs of the type 22. However, there are dangers in going too far down that road. Here I am being selfish in terms of the implications for the shipbuilding industry—that is, apart from defence arguments. A type 22 involves more than the Yarrow shipyard. About 60 per cent. of the value of a type 22 is brought into the yard from outside. A whole range of highly sophisticated defence contractors have a great interest in supplying the components of a ship of this value and complexity. If we simplify in this way, the spin-off—apart from the loss of defence capability—could be considerable.
I do not have the knowledge to assess these matters, nor do I know what the impact would be if we were to replace each type 22 which might have been in a putative ordering programme with a type 23. I do not know the employment projection that that would entail or the cuts that would flow from that decision. I welcome the fact that the type 23 design has been pushed on, but some assurance should be given that there will be a regular ordering pattern, and an assessment of the implications of that trading down-market—if I may put it that way—by the MOD in terms of capacity and need not only of Yarrows, but of all the other contractors and yards which might be involved.
We have a type 22 order—No. 7. We know that the type 23 design work is under way. However, it would not be too cautious to suggest that even if the type 23 got under way and went ahead with no delay there would still be a gap of 18 months to two years—perhaps longer—before a hull would be on the slip and construction work would begin. In view of the skills that Yarrows and such yards represent, perhaps the seventh order will not be the last of the line of the type 22. I hope that I am not reading too much into the letter that Lord Trenchard courteously sent round on the day of the statement on the review expenditure saying that the order of a seventh type 22 would be laid. He went on to say that
the question of further type 22 orders is under review.


I do not know what "under review" means. It is a nice, anonymous blanket phrase. I hope that it means that the door is still open and that there is the possibility of at least another order to bridge the gap before any successor—type 23 or whatever it may be—comes on stream.
I said that I would be brief. In view of the anxieties that are being expressed forcefully and over a wide spectrum by Conservative Members about the direct and sometimes tragic consequences of the Government's decisions on particular interests and constituencies, it would be wrong to pretend that my constituency has been hardly dealt with in this review. As I said, I am grateful that we have the additional type 22 order. For all that, it is right for me to put down a marker and say that I am anxious that there should be continuity of work.
I referred to the unemployment problems in my area. Every hon. Member thinks that his area in unique in the way that it has been hard hit, but in west Glasgow, of the fundamental industries of two or three years ago, such as Weir Pumps, the Singer Sewing Machine Company, the Scotstoun Marine shipyard, which did not deal in naval orders, all that now remain are empty sites. There has been not a rundown, but obliteration. The area has been very hard hit. In my opinion, continuity of work in yards such as Yarrows is of the highest social importance. At the same time, it makes sense in terms of defence spending and the need to maintain a conventional capability. If the work force were dispersed it would be extremely difficult to reassemble the skills and undertake a future building programme, if we ever wanted to do that.
I am sure that all these arguments are familiar to the Minister, but I hope that he will bear them in mind when he considers how the naval programme should develop over the next two or three years.

Mr. Michael Mates: This debate has been remarkable not because of the almost total absence of Labour Members, to which we are all too accustomed, and the non-appearance of the Social Democratic Party—aside from a fleeting visit by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who has a dockyard constituency and who one might think would take more than a passing interest in this debate—but, rather surprisingly, for the three thoughtful contributions that have come from the Opposition Benches.
One was from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), one was from the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) and the last was part of the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). I only wish that they had stayed on to hear the rest of the debate, because they might have been a little surprised to find that I agree with much of what they said and want to comment on it. I shall do that later in my remarks.
First, I want to deal with the reorganisation within the Ministry of Defence which was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). Although all of us deeply regret the circumstances which brought it about, I am pleased that this nettle has been grasped. Whether the new organisation is right, time alone will tell. If it needs adjustment, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Defence will make the necessary adjustments.
The abolition of the single Service Ministers is long overdue. I do not say that those posts were not filled with distinction by many of my hon. Friends and by several Labour Members, but it is the logical conclusion of the setting up of the central staffs of the Ministry of Defence and the centralisation of the direction of the whole defence effort at the top.
Instead of Ministers who are politicians and Members of this House having to be, in the words of one of the Opposition speakers, shop stewards for the Services, which they cannot do if they are also dedicated as part of a team to an overall defence effort, I hope that the Chiefs of Staff will now be the shop stewards of their Services. With the best will in the world, and with all the ability of many of my hon. Friends who held the jobs, the Chiefs of Staff have had 30 years' training in getting to the top of their tree and they understand the single Service. Their interest is known to be the single Service interest of which they are the head. They are the people who should argue the case within the Ministry of Defence and to politicians, rather than a spokesman, sometimes with only months of experience, who has been brought in to carry out this shop steward role.
I am delighted that this has happened, and I hope that it will mean that the arguments that will always arise about the priorities in defence will now be taken direct to the management—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State—from the Service chiefs, who can speak with the wealth of experience that has brought them to their posts.
My second point is about the cuts. They were painful, and the decisions were difficult to take. Predictably, the broadsides have come from on high. Two noble Lords have objected. There have been objections from the Opposition, but they must be tongue-in-cheek objections because every time they object to cuts they are implicitly advocating more defence expenditure. No Opposition Member has said that since we must not cut the Navy because we must have a surface fleet, adjustments must be made elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) said that we must maintain a surface fleet. I wish that he had said what we must do without to achieve that. That would have involved the other side of the argument, to which I shall address my remarks. Much has been said about the broadsides from the admirals. When Lord Hill-Norton made his tirade against what my right hon. Friend has done—again without offering any alternatives—Lord Home of the Hirsel, as always, made a pertinent remark at the pertinent time. He said that Lord Hill-Norton was speaking as though the 3 per cent. increase for five years, to which the Government are committed, was a figure snatched out of the air. He said that that was not so, but was the figure requested by the Secretary-General of NATO and all our allies. That is the base line from which all the decisions have followed.

Mr. Brotherton: Will my hon. Friend also refer to the reply by Lord Hill-Norton to Lord Home?

Mr. Mates: I was about to do so. Lord Hill-Norton said that the Secretary-General of NATO had requested that figure because he thought it was what the NATO market could bear. That is coming to terms with reality. I do not know what my hon. Friend intends to say. I do not know if he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If he does


not, there will be trouble. He may say that what the Secretary of State has done is wrong. He is entitled to that view. However, I hope that he will then tell us what we should have done instead to arrive at the same sum. If he thinks that we should increase our expenditure by more than 3 per cent. per annum in real terms—an increase of hundreds of millions of pounds, which is not small beer—he must say where that money can be found. That is what worries me.
That point follows on from the excellent analysis of the reasons why we got ourselves into this mess which was given, in a purple passage in an otherwise disjointed speech, by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. There has been an explosion in defence technology. Frigates that once cost £5 million now cost £150 million. I tried to point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have not yet reached the end of the technological age.
The explosion in technology does not end in 1981. We all know that throughout the next 20 years we shall have to produce ever more sophisticated answers to the ever more sophisticated threat by the Soviet Union, and especially by its Navy. I do not see how we can continue under the present scheme of things.
While I am happy to sleep in my bed at night, content with my right hon. Friend's decisions, and while I do not think that he needs to lose any sleep about the rightness and the broad sense of what he had to do, the spectre that must haunt him and my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench is that it will have to be done again in two, three or five years. Whatever happens to inflation, the gross domestic product or Britain's economic recovery, the technological advance and the cost involved will outstrip inflation and bring the whole matter back full circle. Whether it is this Government or another Government does not matter—the problem will have to be faced again. We cannot continue to face the problem by paring away at the edge. Some will say that we are taking off the fat, then the flesh and then some of the bone. That is not the way to do it.
We must take a fundamental look at the future because all our NATO allies, with the possible exception of the United States—I shall not draw it into the argument—are trying to do too much across too wide an area. I can see only one answer that will limit our commitment to increased expenditure. It is not realistic to say that we shall spend more than the figure that we have set. Some on the Conservative Benches say that we must spend what we need on defence, and to hell with the social consequences. That is not a tenable position. We must strike a balance. We have always said in our philosophy that we shall give defence a high priority in that balance—but it cannot be every priority.
If we are not to be faced again and again with the agonising decisions about cuts and increases because of advanced technology and other factors, we must think of another way to solve the problem. The Alliance is at the heart of all we do. All our major allies are devoting their efforts across all the areas of defence. Each is maintaining a standing Army, or part of an Army, for the defence of Continental Europe. Each is maintaining a Navy, to a greater or lesser extent, to take in the defence of the Channel and the North Atlantic.

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend is making a serious point. Does he not accept that we are providing 75 or 80 per cent. of the naval force? Therefore, we are not talking

about each member of the Alliance contributing an equal share. We are doing exactly what the hon. Gentleman seeks. We are specialising in the marine defence of the NATO Alliance.

Mr. Mates: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I was not trying to show that each member was spending an equal proportion across the front. I said that each was spreading its resources across the front. She is right to say that we are providing a major contribution to the maritime defence of NATO. That is how it should be. I hope that my remarks will lead her to conclude that we could do better. Each member is maintaining an air strike capability in addition to an air defence capability. Five major countries have land armies for the defence of the central front, protected by their own aircraft—all of which have been bought, developed and researched by their own industries. There is a certain cross play, but not a lot.

Mr. Dewar: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I agree that we should specialise and not try to be omnicompetent. Is that not a strong argument against Trident? We shall never compete effectively with the American-based Western deterrent. Why, therefore, have a redundant status symbol of our own?

Mr. Mates: It is not a status symbol of our own. Above all, it is the NATO part of the strategic deterrent. The hon. Gentleman's argument surely must be strongly in favour of making Trident a sound part of our contribution. It is seen as that. One reason why we have maintained the respect and integrity of the NATO Alliance is the Polaris fleet, which is dedicated to NATO. It is planned and targeted within the Alliance. That is a strong argument in favour of what I am saying.
Across the board, the whole of the Northern Army Group and Central Army Group have standing armies from the Dutch, the Belgians, the West Germans, the United States, ourselves and a small contribution from the Danes. In the South, we have the Italians. Each army's air cover is provided by that nation. We have to make a tremendous effort to defend the 60km of the central front and to provide the close air support and the ground suppression for our own army. The Germans are doing the same alongside us. The others are following suit. The result: is that there are seven or eight different types of aircraft doing the same job on the central front. Each has been procured, developed, researched and built separately. The cost has not been merely seven times the total sum but nearer 70 times that in resources that we could otherwise be using to better advantage.
The same can be said for the variety of frigates, destroyers and other types of ship that are in the various NATO navies. The same applies to the equipment of the standing armies, although that is a slightly different argument. Is it not ludicrous that to do one job on the central front we have five sorts of tank?
With foresight and with a certain amount of risk nationally we could make the most tremendous breakthrough and prevent ourselves from getting into the recurring circle that I have described. Countries will always have to have their own standing armies for their own home purposes as well as for political reasons. However, my hon. Friend's task of undertaking these desperately difficult procurement sums would be made so much easier if, for example, we were able to agree within NATO that the Unted Kingdom, because of its experience


and background, and the whole of its tradition, would provide an even greater part of the standing NATO maritime defence and that in return the West Germans, for example, would provide the close air support of the British Army of the Rhine.
That is a proposition that would not be popular with an Air Force Minister. I am glad that we do not have one again. It would not be popular with the Royal Air Force. Of course, it is extremely proud of the highly expensive and highly sophisticated Second Tactical Air Force, of which it forms the major part and which sits in Germany, but at what cost not only to our defence effort but to the overall effort that NATO is able to make within limited budgets?
I can see no way out of the perpetual dilemma other than rethinking the way in which we arm NATO and task it. It cannot be sensible to continue with the present approach. If it is difficult for us, how much more difficult it must be for Denmark and Belgium, which have much smaller gross national products than that of the United Kingdom and which experience much greater difficulty in providing a small force? In most instances they have to resort to buying from overseas.
If we could achieve a common procurement programme and a rationalisation of tasks so that every country did what it was either best placed to do or best at from its history and traditions, we would have a NATO force structure that pound for pound could well be three or four times as efficient and cost effective as the present structure.
The penalty that we pay is political. All the nations would have to pool part of their political independence. If that happened, we would not be able to cope with anything that happened on the central front without full agreement. BAOR would be unable to operate if the Germans decided not to take part in a particular phase of a NATO conflagration. That risk would have to be faced and there would have to be tough negotiations.
Is that really a risk? Could any part of Continental Europe for a political reason opt out of responding to an attack by the Soviet Union on the central front? I do not believe that such a political reason exists. Politicians might huff and puff. They might be as proud of national independence as General de Gaulle, who took France out of the Alliance for that one reason. However, in the state of tension in which we live, I do not believe that there is any leader in the Western European Community who should not be prepared to say, "We shall pool that bit of our national sovereignty in the greater cause of the success of NATO." That is the approach that our political leaders must now take.
It is no longer any use pussyfooting around the problem of ever-increasing defence expenditure against, comparatively speaking, ever-reduced resources, however strong the political will—and it could hardly be stronger than that which has been demonstrated by the Government. Even so, we are left with decisions which cause many of us anxiety because they will reduce our capacity against an increased threat.
There will have to be some great and imaginative politicking by our political leaders in Western Europe. Without that I do not believe that we shall solve the problem. I believe—this is something that I sincerely regret and I hope that it will not happen—that after two or three years we shall be having this debate all over again.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, or his successor if he has gone on to greater things, will be saying, "I am sorry. This is the problem and this is the best solution that we can offer."
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the solution that he has come up with. It is the best one in the circumstances. It is the last time that we can tinker with the problem in this way and still maintain any credibility in our defence.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) complained about the absence of Opposition Members participating in the debate. No doubt he will recall that I was rising in my place and trying to get the opportunity to participate in the debate at an earlier stage.
A number of Conservative Members have exhibited the officer-militaristic syndrome that characterises these debates. However, one or two have made a plea for dockyard workers and the representation of dockyards. Against a background of almost 3 million unemployed, it is understandable that Members of Parliament should press the case to retain jobs. I believe that before the dockyards are closed or other defence facilities are pruned there should be alternative jobs for the workers concerned.
There has been a call for a Minister to act as a shop steward for the Services. When one Minister tried to do that he was given the push. There has been a reorganisation so that direct representation of the Services—in the instance to which I referred it was the Navy—should not recur. When dockyard workers are making their representations, which is often through the trade union movement, there is no reason why members of the Navy should not have their own shop stewards. There is no reason why members of the Navy should not be allowed to join the National Union of Seamen and to organise and maintain services and conditions.
The Government are about to embark on one of the most ludicrous prestige projects on which a nation has ever embarked. I refer to Trident. It will be the responsibility of members of the Navy to supervise that horrible means of mass extermination. It seems that those people should have a right to discuss the issue and to make known their views about the task that will be imposed upon them if the Government's plans are implemented. I doubt very much whether they will be, because the Government will be replaced by a Labour Government, and the Labour Opposition are pledged to halt Trident when they form a Government.
There is no reason why members of the Armed Forces should not be entitled to join a trade union and to take part in such an important discussion. They are not robots. They have a right to express their views and to put their case forward in the trade union movement. Indeed, that happens in Holland, where members of the Armed Forces have advanced some interesting views about the proposed siting of cruise missiles on their soil. It adds a new and different dimension to our discussions and debates on these matters. It may be that the Government are frightened by that degree of organised representation, just as they are frightened of all trade unions.
It should be the right of those in the Armed Forces as well as in the Service organisations, such as the dockyards, which are an integral part of maintaining the Navy, to have the right of trade union organisation.
Members on the Conservative Benches outdo one another in their claims for more new weapons and larger weapons with more means of extermination. That is because of the militaristic syndrome that afflicts the Conservative Party. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who is the chairman of the Conservative Party Back-bench defence group—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not."] He was, so he has probably been given the push. He is on record as saying that Trident would draw resources from the conventional parts of the Royal Navy. That is right. He is the only one to exhibit any critical faculty towards the purchase of and embarkation on the expenditure on Trident. How nauseating it is that the Government should embark on that massive expenditure when they are cutting back on every part of the Welfare State, which people of this nation hold dear.
The National Health Service is facing cuts because of the increase in VAT, and so on. Local authorities are facing cuts. Yesterday we debated the £47 million worth of cuts for the Lothian region in Scotland. That will spread to England and Wales. It will mean more people who are providing services to the community being put on the dole. Children do not have sufficient textbooks. That question is raised, and the Minister metaphorically weeps crocodile tears. However, the Minister's inspectors have said that there are serious difficulties in the supply of textbooks. Roads, sewerage facilities and housing are being cut. This year about 30,000 council houses are being built, compared with 107,000 in the last full year of the Labour Government.
People in need are queueing up for housing at reasonable rents, yet the Government are embarking on a project costing at least £6 billion. I shall come to evidence by the Committee of Public Accounts, which suggests that the Ministry of Defence is not all that capable of assessing costs in any event. The Minister's figure is at least £5 billion. We know that that is moving inexorably towards £6 billion. The Government prefer such a priority to the priorities that the people of our nation prefer.
No wonder the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is gaining strength week by week and month by month. No wonder the Secretary of State for Defence is using taxpayers' money to mount a campaign to try to combat the enthusiasm. ideas and commitment of the members of the CND.
It is a scandal that the Government have cut back on overseas aid to the poorest nations on the face of the earth when they are proposing to spend £6 billion on Trident. That is the Government's priority, yet people who can hardly feed or clothe themselves will face difficulties as a result of the Government's cutback. The Government are increasing the fees for overseas students, so that, for example, Zimbabwe, the country for which the Government are supposed to have organised a settlement—which they did well; everyone said that that was a good step forward—is now having to withdraw students from this country because of the increase in overseas students' fees. The Government are apparently reluctant to provide that extra finance while they embark on the means of massive extermination.
If Polaris is the deterrent that the Conservatives say it is, why do they need at least twice the power of Polaris to maintain the deterrent?

Mr. Mates: They do not.

Mr. Cryer: In that case, why embark on Trident at all? The fact is that Polaris is already an enormously horrific weapon. One boat carries more fire-power than was used by both sides during the last war—that is the dimension about which we are talking. Some Conservatives say that it is a sort of catapult, but it is a means of mass human extermination. Therefore, if it is, and has been, effective as a deterrent—I do not accept that, but it is the Government's point of view—why should we double the amount of power? If we are doubling the amount of power, other nuclear nations will go along that road.
Whilst Conservative Members wring their hands and talk about multilateral disarmament, the fact is that year in and year out nations are accumulating more nuclear weaponry. If Trident is essential to our purpose as a deterrent, what about the 100 countries that do not have nuclear weapons? What argument should be put to them? What about the countries that signed the non-proliferation treaty on the basis that the nuclear powers would take some determined steps towards reducing their dependence on nuclear weapons? What about that argument? If we have Trident, is that not a justification for every other nation to say that it, too, needs a deterrent and that it, too, needs to take its part in the development of nuclear power. Happily, the majority of the world's nations do not have nuclear weapons. They do not have to depend upon deterrents. Somehow, they get by.
This is a vicious circle. Everyone says that he wants to disarm but no one does, and one side pushes up its capacity, so that the other side says that it has to increase its capacity to match the other side, as it can negotiate disarmament only from strength. We are moving in a vortex towards destruction. Until and unless we take a determined stand, that vortex will inexorably move towards that moment of calamity.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament by this country will be an important step along that road. Like Canada, we will have rejected the deployment and use of nuclear weapons. It will be an act of faith to those countries that do not have nuclear weapons. They will see a nuclear Power taking a determined step to end dependence on nuclear weaponry and it will expose the real problem of nuclear weapons, which is not ours, but that of the two super blocks—America and Russia. It will help to push those two countries towards serious and determined negotiations for disarmament.
The business of always referring to "the other side"—the Russians—is used as an excuse for massive expenditure, which is accepted virtually without question by Conservative Members. Useful expenditure is never treated in the same way. If it is for local authorities close scrutiny is exercised. We should do that for this expenditure. Let us take the example of Sting Ray. The Committee of Public Accounts drew the attention of the House in June last year to Sting Ray. Sting Ray is not a minor matter, but a matter of £1 billion, like the updating of Polaris under operation Chevaline. Sting Ray has been done in a better way and it has been done openly, which is much to be preferred.
The Committee of Public Accounts said:
The Ministry stressed that the choice was made predominantly on the basis that Sting Ray alone possessed the capabilities considered essential to meet the potential threat. For this reason the project has been given high priority in spite of the last slice of defence resources which it would consume.


Almost identical words are used about Trident. We must have it, because if we do not our strategic position will be weakened.
The Committee of Public Accounts said in paragraph 26:
We feel bound to say on the evidence available to us, we were not convinced by MOD's case for spending an additional £720 million rather than purchasing the US torpedo.
What about that immense amount of money? In paragraph 21 the Committee says:
As far as Sting Ray was concerned MOD accepted that they had not fully learned the lessons from the Mark 31 torpedo project. They had failed to appreciate the technical complexities of the project and had tried to develop each of the components separately.
Will that be true of Trident? The Government do not even know which mark of Trident they will buy. Therefore, how on earth have they solved the technical complexities?

Mr. Donald Stewart: They will buy the most expensive one.

Mr. Cryer: We know that most Conservatives go weak at the knees when defence is mentioned and say "Yes". It means that more and more expenditure is approved without the necessary critical scrutiny. That always costs the taxpayer more than it should, because undue care and attention is paid to the need for it in the first place.

Sir Patrick Wall: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bring the story up to date and quote from the report of the Select Committee on Defence. That shows that since 1977, when Marconi defence systems took over, Sting Ray has cost less than anticipated and has been ahead of time. That completes the hon. Gentleman's story.

Mr. Cryer: It still cost £1 billion. We ought to follow the example of Japan, which spends less than 1 per cent. of GNP on defence. I agree that Japan has a different GNP from ours, but various people in the arms industry want Japan to spend a great deal more. So far, Japan has resisted those blandishments.
It may be felt that as a result of the development of Sting Ray we can perhaps export a few torpedoes to world markets, but that will not benefit ordinary people in other countries who are looking anxiously for better schools, tractors and irrigation schemes. Sting Ray will not bless them with such things.
Why do we not use that money and the ability of our people to develop products that we need and want? Japan has done that with enormous success. On many occasions we have talked about Japanese car imports and how they can be cut back, but Japanese cars are well designed. Japan has also taken over the motor cycle industry, and is a world leader in sound centres and audio equipment. We could do the same if only we put our resources into those sectors.
We are wasting our money on Trident and projects such as Sting Ray. The people of the world need better priorities visited upon them. By stopping Trident and providing the Navy with decent facilities—if necessary, by providing alternative jobs for dockyard workers—I believe that we can switch from defence to peaceful purposes. In that way we can safeguard jobs without the threat of mass extermination, which Trident implicitly and explicitly means for all of us.

Mr. Peter Viggers: It is a parliamentary tradition, when following the speech of another hon. Member, to say something complimentary about him. I admire the brass neck of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for not being present during the whole debate and complaining that he had not been called.
As the debate is about the Royal Navy, I hope that the House will forgive me if I concentrate first on one aspect that has caused me considerable concern—the proposed rundown of Portsmouth dockyard. That has caused everyone who works for the Conservative cause a great deal of agonising. It is no secret that for years many of us have campaigned on the basis that the Conservative Party believes in and is more committed to defence than the Labour Party. From that it follows that the Conservative Party is more likely to spend money on defence and to safeguard the jobs of people in the Gosport-Portsmouth area.
When, several weeks ago, before the defence review was announced, I discovered that it was likely to involve the closure of Portsmouth dockyard, I was shaken. I had to study the implications of the review and try to form my own view about whether the proposed rundown of Portsmouth dockyard was something that I could support. I spent much time consulting many people, including members of the North Atlantic Assembly and many colleagues and friends. One makes many friends on the defence circuit, especially if one has been a pilot in the Royal Air Force, commanded a missile unit in the Territorial Army and represents a naval constituency. I was, therefore, able to receive some good advice.
My conclusion is that we are suffering from disarmament by inflation. A recent study in the United States showed that armaments costs were rising by about 20 per cent. compared with inflation of about 13 per cent. On that basis, it is necessary to spend an extra 7 per cent. in real terms each year just to stand still.
That has an effect in a number of ways. Principally, we have maintained our platforms—the ships, aircraft, tanks and helicopters—but we have lost out in terms of weapons systems, war stocks, such as ammunition, and training. It has not been possible to use our ships in the way that we would wish; nor has it been possible to give our pilots the flying training that we would wish.
The immediate and most important implication in the Gosport-Portsmouth area is that we have been stretching the life of our ships. We built the ships on the basis of a 20 to 25-year life, with three refits during that period, including a major mid-term refit. We know that a refit for a Leander class frigate now costs about £70 million. Of course, refits for smaller ships are less expensive. But we can no longer live with the concept of mid-term refits.
Let me give a homely parallel which is valid. Years ago, when a motor car gearbox went wrong the car would be taken to a garage and a skilled mechanic would remove the gearbox. He would take it to bits and, if necessary, painstakingly make a new cog to fit it. He would then reassemble the gearbox and put it back in the car. That can still be done, but increasingly it has become uneconomic to do so. What normally happens now is that the garage replaces the component. Moreover, we no longer try to repair cars indefinitely. Motor cars are built so that all parts last for roughly the same period. It is called phased obsolescence.
When that is applied to ships, it does not make sense to take a frigate or another surface ship and refit it to a major extent—the hull and engine still retained—after about 10 or 12 years. If that is done, we still end up with a ship, the hull and engine of which are 10 to 12 years old.
I became convinced that the concept of major refits, which make up a heavy proportion of turnover in dockyards, was wrong. I arrived at that conclusion not as the result of comments that I have received in letters and elsewhere or of any kind of pressure from any source but independently. I therefore supported the main concept of the defence review as it involves my area with a heavy heart but with a clear conscience.
Many people in the Gosport-Portsmouth area cannot understand how one can support a defence review that involves job losses in the area. They want to know how I can fail to oppose a plan that will cost jobs. Vital though jobs are, primarily defence is not about jobs but about lives and defending a way of life. That priority must therefore prevail.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden), who referred to the three duties of a Member of Parliament—the national duty, the constituency duty and the party duty—will recognise that those of us who support the defence review do so because, albeit with a heavy heart, we recognise that the national duty must take priority over the constituency duty. I therefore support the main concept of the defence review.
I turn to the personnel implications for my area. I have a shopping list of five items which I have already put to the Secretary of State. I believe that he, his Ministers and the Government must take cognisance of the fact that what they are doing to the dockyard areas is comparable with what has been done in the areas where steelworks have been closed and major redundancies have taken place. This is not normal redundancy. It is not just a few people becoming redundant and seeking jobs elsewhere. It is redundancy on a major scale in an area so completely dependent for employment on the Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence that the Government must take cognisance of the special demands of the people involved. It will not be easy for them to find jobs outside the defence area. There must therefore be special terms.
My shopping list is as follows. First, I ask the Government to take special cognisance of the requirements for compensation. In a brief intervention I said that compensation for redundancy in other areas had been quite generous. Of course, I quote maximum figures and I recognise that they do not apply in many cases. Nevertheless, I believe that those becoming redundant in the Gosport and Portsmouth area and, indeed, in Chatham are entitled to point to them as examples of the figures that they expect to use in negotiations.
In British Shipbuilders, the maximum payment is £10,350. In the British Steel Corporation, it is £18,000. I make the point at once, as I am anxious not to mislead the House, that the highest-paid production worker in BSC at age 60 and with more than 20 years service would have received that amount, but that very few payments were made at that level. Nevertheless, is fair to show the levels of compensation that have been given in other areas. Similarly, the Post Office posts and Giro service made compensation payments of £6,050 in 1980. I believe that my constituents are entitled to point to those figures and

to say that if the scheme operated by the Ministry of Defence does not match up to them, they have a right to know why.
Secondly, there is the question of land release. Working parties in Hampshire, in Gosport and in Portsmouth are now studying the requirements. I believe that about one-third of the land in my constituency is controlled by the Ministry of Defence PSA on behalf of the Royal Navy. Considerable areas could be released to provide opportunities for building factories where people could find employment. It is not for me to say which land should be released. It is not even for me to ask which land would be released. That is the proper duty of the working parties for Gosport and for Hampshire. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to take cognisance of the special needs as and when those requests are made.
Thirdly, there must be an acceleration of the ship and boat building programme. For years, a situation has been tolerated which has allowed about 14 years to elapse from the date when a ship is first conceived to the date when it reaches service. That is unacceptable. We must think again about the whole of our ship and boat building programme. We must try to work out how to get the hulls into the water fast. If, as the ship is being designed or even built, someone in Bath, someone in Whitehall or someone in the builder's employ thinks of a better way of designing it, he should be told that his ideas can be implemented in the second hull. Let us get the first hull in the water and have the experimentation worked out in that way. Consistently, ships have been held up for year after year because the best is the enemy of the good. One is always seeking perfection, but by the time one gets perfection the ship is out of date. We need those ships to maintain the shore and training establishments to keep up the role of the Navy.
Fourthly, there must be a new look at defence procurement. Many firms, including small firms, in the Gosport and Portsmouth area have gone to the trouble and cost of having themselves accepted as recognised defence contractors. They then find that because of the reduction in shipbuilding there is less of the smaller sub-contracting work for which they have registered as defence contractors or subcontractors in the first place. We must ensure that a proper proportion of the work goes to those who have taken the trouble to register in that way.
Fifthly, because of the vital role of the Ministry of Defence in the Gosport and Portsmouth area and its crucial role in training we cannot afford to lose the job and apprenticeship opportunities provided by Portsmouth dockyard training school. I hope that ways will be found by the Government to take account of those points. I do not want to be told by the Ministry of Defence that this is not its area and that I should see the Secretary of State for Employment. The Ministry of Defence has a prime responsibility. It has caused the problems and it must help solve them.
Much has been said about the reduction in the size of the Navy, and I know that morale has suffered to a certain extent. However, it is fair to say that the Royal Navy will be left with its vital role of the protection of our trade routes—96 per cent. of our food and raw materials come to and leave this country by sea—the protection of North Sea oil and gas production, the protection of our fisheries, employing about 20,000 men, and responsibility for the


nuclear deterrent, which is rightly entrusted to the Royal Navy. There is no heavier responsibility entrusted to anyone than that entrusted to the Royal Navy in that area.
Finally on the list of roles is the reinforcement and keeping free of sea routes in times of emergency. It is not good enough for us to expect the United States to provide the ships, the men and the cover for the reinforcements that will be required in times of emergency. I have made the point before, but I reiterate it: how can we expect the United States, still suffering from the scars of Vietnam, looking West as well as East, to provide not only these thousands of men, the millions of pounds worth of equipment, the ships in which to bring those reinforcements of men and materials, but the convoy cover? It would be stretching credibility and our defence capacity too far to think that the United States would do all that if we were not prepared to show our total commitment to NATO by maintaining a strong surface fleet.
A major sea battle may be unlikely now, but the Russian's submarine threat is enormous and their mining threat—which has not been mentioned—is also enormous. We must have a minesweeping capacity and a surface fleet capacity that will enable us to withstand those threats. If we do not concentrate our resources where they are really needed we may find our harbours mined and our supply ships sunk or threatened. If our food and raw materials could not be brought in it would be incumbent upon us to escalate the war or to starve. How do we face that threat? We must face it by increasing our surface fleet and by increasing our minesweeping capacity. Our small frigates and conventional submarines must be fast.
My hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) referred to the concept of changing the roles within NATO and allowing each country to concentrate on its strengths. I raised that point during a recent meeting of the NATO assembly. It received rather short shrift from many of our European colleagues. Nevertheless, it is necessary for us to move on and to consider the wider question within the concept of NATO.
NATO, of course, moved from an alliance of guarantee—an alliance whereby each of the parties provided its own defence guarantee to the others—to an alliance more closely linked with forces from each of the countries that are prepared to fight in central Europe, and so on. We may have to look again at that concept and concentrate our resources where they are most useful and needed. That would require us to look again at the defence of the North Atlantic and the Channel, which would necessitate increasing not only our surface fleet but our other naval forces.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on not only a notable but a brave speech, in which he set out so sensibly his views about the future of the dockyards.
I begin by saying something in favour of Her Majesty's Government—which is always a pleasurable thing to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "And rare."' Indeed, it is rare. The decision about Chatham and Portsmouth dockyards is entirely correct. No one has yet pointed out that the dockyard at Chatham was originally built to defend us against the Dutch and that the dockyard at Portsmouth was

built to defend us against the French. The French, eccentric though they may be, are unlikely, even under President Mitterrand, to attack us. Therefore it is a correct decision for Her Majesty's Government to run down the dockyard at Portsmouth.
The attendance on the Labour Benches—I see that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has just returned—shows the great regard of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition for the Royal Navy. Even the Opposition Front Bench was unguarded for a time.
I note that no representative of the Liberal Party has been here all day. I have sat here since 3 pm. There is another party that sits on the Opposition Benches. One of its members looked in briefly—the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) —then disappeared. Doubtless he had other things to do, such as deciding who should be the leader of his party, or even what its policy should be on the Royal Navy. As the party has not yet decided on a policy, it would be impossible for any member of the democratic Socialists—that is what we must call them, not Social Democrats—to say what sort of policy the party should have on the Royal Navy.

Mr. Moate: They are in favour of it in Devonport.

Mr. Brotherton: Yes, but the right hon. Member for Devonport did not even get up to say a word on behalf of the dockyard in his constituency.
We have had a fairly mean and nasty debate. We have talked about dockyards, about labour, about Europe, and about the North Atlantic, but we have not talked basically about the Royal Navy. No one in the entire debate has mentioned the Soviet fleet, which has expanded over the years and is now in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.
We are debating today a Royal Navy that is to be dramatically and drastically reduced at the same time as the Soviets are commissioning aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers in enormous numbers.
I sometimes despair of this nation. We were elected to office in May 1979 to defend the nation, on a platform of boosting our defences once again. But what has happened? We have had a defence review and a defence White Paper, and now the Royal Navy, the most important arm of our three Services, is being slashed.
In the last few months I have had the privilege of visiting two training establishments of the Royal Navy, one for officers and one for petty officers. I went last October to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth—where I had the great privilege of being educated—for the rededication of the chapel. My wife had done a kneeler for the chapel—in commemoration of me. She had said to the padre, "Who shall I do it in memory of'?" and I said, "Why not me?" She said "You are not dead," and I said, "I shall be some day". So I am now commemorated in the chapel there. We were there for the weekend and had a marvelous time. When I saw the hundreds of totally dedicated young men and the training staff, I was proud to be British and proud of the Royal Navy.
Only a few weeks ago I went to HMS "Royal Arthur", the petty officers' leadership school, to talk to the 150 petty officers there. I had been given the nod by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) two months earlier. He told me that the Secretary of State was happy for me to go there but that I was not to talk politics. Of course, I would not dream of doing that. I went there on


the day after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had announced what was to be done to our Royal Navy. I was courageous. I did not talk politics to the petty officers.
I am given to understand that we have a commitment to NATO and to our American allies to maintain 70 per cent. of the anti-submarine warfare presence in the eastern Atlantic. Under the Secretary of State's proposals in the White Paper it will no longer be possible for Britain to maintain that 70 per cent. presence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) and I learnt this afternoon that hon. Members are not allowed to quote directly speeches that are made in the other place. However, Lord Hill-Norton made a remarkably sound speech the day before yesterday. He said that the Government's thinking—if he may so dignify it—was that we should reduce the number of surface vessels in our sea-going fleet from 50 to about 30. That is a crazy proposal. It will be impossible to fight the antisubmarine battle that might arise with Nimrods and antisubmarine submarines. Basically, we need frigates that carry helicopters.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, to some extent, in his argument for maintaining the fleet. However, the weakness is that we have been told that Polaris—and, in future, Trident—is a deterrent. If that is so, we are not likely to face that type of situation. We must make a choice between nuclear and conventional weapons, because we cannot afford both.

Mr. Brotherton: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We need a belt-and-braces defence policy. We need Trident to replace the Polaris fleet as a deterrent against a nuclear attack. We also need a normal conventional fleet, in case we have to fight a normal conventional war.
We are told by the Secretary of State that a few more Nimrods are being produced to help us in a possible antisubmarine battle in the Atlantic. I wonder whether hon. Members realise what an additional three Nimrods mean to our anti-submarine defences? They mean 50 per cent. of very little. To have one Nimrod aircraft on task there must be six aircraft in commission. One aircraft is on patrol, one is in transit to patrol, one is in transit back to base, one is turning round, one is unserviceable and one is on a main check 4 or main check 5 major refit. Therefore, to say that we can replace any number of frigates by adding three, or even six, Nimrods to our antisubmarine forces is foolish and dishonest. Six Nimrods mean one Nimrod on task. To put one Nimrod over the vast Atlantic ocean is to send an aircraft out to throw ping-pong or tennis balls into the ocean in the hope of hitting something.
As was proved in the last war, we need surface ships with sonar to defeat a submarine force. I do not mean those sophisticated surface ships. We have wasted an enormous amount—£100 million to £150 million—on them. I mean ships that carry helicopters and anti-submarine weapons and that are backed up by anti-submarine submarines and Nimrods. Vice-Admiral Sir John Roxburgh—a distinguished submariner and an ex-flag officer, submarines—pointed out in a recent article in The Daily Telegraph that the argument in favour of anti-submarine submarines being used as our primary weapon against the Soviet submersed fleet is nonsense. Will the Minister give

us an assurance that the Government will think again about the disastrous decision in the White Paper to reduce the number of surface vessels?
The Secretary of State said in May that he had no thoughts about any of the Invincible class being taken out of commission. Far be it from me to say that the Secretary of State was not aware of what was going on in his Department. It is, however, extraordinary that only a few weeks later the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box to say that one is soon to be sold—a pal of mine has just been made captain of an Invincible class vessel—and that "Illustrious" and "Ark Royal" will be in commission only one at a time.
This brings me to the Secretary of State's thoughts expressed in Washington some months ago, soon after the Reagan Administration came to office. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also joined in. There were great cries at the time that Britain would be in favour of a rapid deployment force. This was greeted with cries of joy on the Conservative Benches. Who are the rapid deployment force to be? Obviously they are to be Royal Marines. Three Commandos remain in commission. Who will take the Royal Marine Commandos in their rapid deployment force anywhere? After all, the assault vessels are being phased out. We are told that "Hermes" is being taken out of commission, that "Invincible" is to be sold and that "Illustrious" and "Ark Royal" will be in commission only one at a time.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be consistent in his thoughts. It is no good the hon. Member for Hamilton giggling on the Opposition Front Bench. For his party conference in October, all the resolutions on defence related to nuclear disarmament and taking away all our defences. The hon. Gentleman is totally out on a limb as he sits there giggling. He proves yet again that Socialists have no interest in our defence and no interest in looking after the nation. His party conference will prove that what I say is true.
I would, however, say to the Minister that the Conservatives were elected in May 1979 to defend the realm. We were elected to increase our defence forces. It is no good talking about 3 per cent. As Lord Hill-Norton said two days ago,
You cannot buy defence like you buy soap powder." —
[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 1981; Vol. 423, c. 20.]
One defines the threat and then one guards oneself against it.
It has been argued from the Conservative Benches that one cannot spend all that is necessary on defence because there are also calls on social spending. I would only say to the House that if one does not defend oneself, one is not worthy, as a nation, to be called a nation. Lord Home of the Hirsel said some years ago that a nation that is not prepared to spend enough to defend itself is not worthy to be called a nation. My fear at the moment is that the Government which I have the privilege to support are not doing all that they should do to defend our people against aggressors from overseas.

Mr. Bruce George: I apologise to the House. I sometimes sit through defence debates without being called. That perhaps limits my apology. I shall


apologise however more profusely afterwards to those hon. Members who are not able to speak because of the time taken by my speech.
The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) has publicly agonised over the role of the Conservative Party in defence. Often, when the Labour Party was in power, Labour Members were taunted about what would happen when the Conservative Party came into office. We were told that unlimited sums would be available for defence. It must be nauseating for Conservative Members to find that the situation is nothing like that, and even more nauseating to realise that the despised Labour Party, when in Government, does not automatically sell the country down the river, despite party resolutions. For the party of defence and for the party that has supposedly supported the Navy to speak about the closing of dockyards and the scuttling of a large part of the fleet may lead their constituents to put further pressure on Conservative Members and their Government.
Some Labour Members argue that the money spent on Trident should be devoted to building new hospitals and other such projects. In many ways, I wish that that could be done, but those of us who signed the minority report of the Select Committee on Defence said that the money should not automatically be lost to the defence budget. If the world situation does not improve, the money should be spent on improving our conventional defence.
The argument of those of us who believe that there should be a defence posture for this country—we are not an overwhelming majority in the Labour Party—is that there should be a better division of labour within NATO. I will not argue the moral, philosophical and political reasons for abandoning Trident, but I believe that if we abandoned the project we would be able to play a better part within NATO—and even the Labour Party conference overwhelmingly rejected a motion to withdraw from NATO. We should concentrate on conventional defence and rely on the United States to provide the nuclear deterrent. I hope that we would have considerable influence on the United States in seeking to ensure that it exercises restraint in its foreign policy. At present there is no overwhelming evidence that that will be the case.
Those who argue that Trident will not distort the rest of the defence budget are talking nonsense. Trident is beinning to bite on that budget even before it has been designed or built and before we know what sort of missile will come with it and what submarine diameter will be required.
What will be left of our conventional forces in five or six years when the cost of Trident keeps increasing? Conservative Members are already bleating, but if present defence policies continue for the next five years there will inevitably be further cuts in our conventional defence effort, which could be a disaster.
I wish to concentrate on two themes—the decline of party influence on defence and the consequences of Trident for the naval procurement process.
The hon. Member for Louth castigated Labour Members for their non-attendance. One should not always equate the numbers sitting in on a debate with enthusiasm for the subject. Instead of castigating Labour Members, we should be castigating ourselves, as the legislature, for allowing our influence over defence matters to decline so

considerably. Perhaps the Opposition Benches are bare, but of the 635 hon. Members eligible to attend only one-tenth have been here.
It is not a question of the Ministry of Defence and the Government taking power away from Parliament. It is more a case of Parliament's having thrown the power away. Perhaps Supply days are an example of the growing impotence of Parliament. We have strayed a long way from the original intention of debates on such days and if attendances continue to fall there will be a danger of the Government's considering taking away even these limited opportunities which are so important to Parliament.
Even with the new Select Committee on Defence and the Public Accounts Committee, parliamentary influence over administration, policy and finance in defence matters is limited. We can hardly pat ourselves on the back for the way that we have abdicated our responsibility to the Executive.
The Government can make major decisions on naval matters and all that we can do is to shout "Hooray" or "Boo". Their decision is a fait accompli. Parliament is used only to support any decision. Our whipping system means that only a handful of Government Back Benchers will vote against any decision, even though they may scream blue murder during debates. We have abdicated our responsibility and in many ways we deserve the impotence that Parliament suffers in these matters.
It was not always that way. Parliament had a legitimate interest in those matters. I do not always extol the virtues of bygone eras, but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Parliament had real debates on defence. There were an enormous number of Select Committees operating on all manner of naval and defence matters. The expenditure committees, although not called that, exercised considerable influence on naval policy. There were naval and military disasters in 1809, such as the Walcheren expedition, and that was followed by an enormous parliamentary outcry. The failures in the Crimean War were also followed by parliamentary outcry and a Select Committee. Even the setting up of that Select Committee led to the resignation of the Government. That was the nature of parliamentary control. It was not complete from the fourteenth century onwards but in those days Parliament exercised a real influence.
Parliament, through the new Committee system and the renewed interest from the Back Benches on both sides of the House, has an opportunity to renew that influence. One should not criticise hon. Members, but Conservative Members do not turn up for debates, except at 10 o'clock, and one realises the extent to which Parliament has sunk.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: I have been in the Chamber for two or three hours and the concern that I share with the hon. Gentleman is that no members of the Social Democratic Party or the Liberal Party are present to express their opinion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that view with me. They are the people who are supposed to form a Government one day.

Mr. George: We hope for both of our sakes that that is not the case.
"The Way Forward", which I regard as the way backwards, expresses what will happen. Dockyards will close. We have not learnt very much in the House or in the country. I was amused when looking at a Select Committee report dated 1797 in which was argued the


same ground for improving the dockyards as we have been arguing quite recently. There was the desire then to give greater autonomy to the dockyard management. Two hundred years later we do not appear to have learnt any lessons. The dockyards will be emasculated. Some of the surface fleet will be sunk. I regard that with considerable disquiet.
Much nonsense is written about the Soviet threat. We should consider the naval threat in perspective. I believe that the Soviet naval threat has been exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the Russians have a legitimate interest in establishing a world-based navy. The second important fact is that the USSR is improving considerably the quality and quantity of its fleets. The northern fleet includes one aircraft carrier, 11 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 47 frigates, 56 strategic nuclear submarines and 135 attack submarines. A fleet of that size cannot be ignored. Although we may criticise the quality of the seamanship and say that it is not the same as ours and we can point to disasters in some naval construction of the Soviet Union, we cannot deny that the threat has increased. I do not believe that the Soviet Union is superior, but it is a trend to be observed.
In the event of an appalling conflict, the Soviet Navy's objective would be to disrupt NATO shipping in a short or protracted war. It also has a role in disrupting shipping in peace time, according to Admiral Gorshkov, the architect of the Soviet Navy. Naval forces can be used in peace time to put pressure on enemies at a time of military demonstration as a threat to interfering with sea communications and as a hindrance to ocean commerce. It must be stated that the Soviet Navy is not superior to those in the West, but it is constantly improving. The Soviet Union has more attack submarines than we have and it is producing nuclear-powered submarines at the rate of 10 a year.
One should consider the failures of the United States in producing its first Ohio class submarine. There were 80,000 faults in the first vessel. That proves that there is need for concern. I believe that the Soviet naval threat is credible. Although the country is weak in air power, antisubmarine warfare, amphibious warfare, logistics and readiness, it has a capability to sink our ships and to create havoc in the sea lanes, but only if we allow it to do so.
The primary function of a navy is to exploit an opponent's weakness. However, I believe that the current naval strategy is not designed round that fundamental principle. Like the Soviet navy, our Navy seems to be more concerned to show the flag than to prepare for the next war, which I hope will never materialise.
In sharp comparison to the 1950s and 1960s the Soviets now have a real navy. It is a force that will not vanish overnight. It can be negated if our naval strategists and builders are up to the task. A paranoia and obsession with Soviet superiority will not assist us to achieve that policy goal.
For NATO to win a conflict, or not to be defeated, it is necessary for it to control the Atlantic. Reinforcement is crucial in the event of a war. For the Soviet Union to win it is not necessary for it to control the seas. The Soviets need only to deny us the ability to control the seas. That is their lesser task.
Our Navy, traditionally, has a significant role within NATO. I fear that as a result of Trident that role will be diminished. Our traditional task is to patrol the Greenland and Iceland gap where the Soviet submarine threat is most obvious. That is where the Soviets would be likely to enter

the Atlantic. If we do not have the number of ships and submarines necessary for that task that must be to our disadvantage. The proposed cuts in the surface fleet call our whole naval strategy into doubt.
Perhaps the Navy is correct to say that the future of naval warfare lies with subsurface vessels. That does not mean that we should not hold our current level of surface ships. If we go ahead with Trident we shall suffer in a number of ways. For example, there will be delays in procuring new attack submarines. We have 12 and shall have 17. Anyone who believes that that is adequate to meet the threat is wrong. Trident will pre-empt the hunter-killer submarine programme.
If we diminish our capability in maritime defence, who will pick up the mantle? Will it be the United States? The United States has a worldwide function but doubt whether it will be keen to fill the vacuum that we would leave. Will it be the French, the Germans or the Italians? I doubt it. "The Way Forward" says that the Navy's role will not be diminished. Obviously, it is to be diminished.
Just because the world could be engulfed in a nuclear war, we should not automatically believe that we need only a nuclear deterrent. We cannot go back to the old tripwire philosophy of the Sandys era—the shorter the fuse, the greater the danger. The Government have chosen the course that we feared all along. They want to have their cake and eat it. They intend to spend between a £6 billion and £8 billion on Trident. The price will be a blunted conventional presence.
I hope that as a result of reading the majority report of the Select Committee—and more importantly, the superior minority report—even the Government will realise that we can fulfill our NATO role far better by concentrating on developing our conventional presence than by having a weapons system which is not obsolete but greatly in excess of our needs, and which adds little to NATO's deterrent capability. The price that we shall pay for Trident and four submarines will be the sinking of more ships and a further reduction of BAOR's fire power. Conservatives who were elected to improve defence will surely not allow that to happen.

Mr. Neville Trotter: The debate is taking place against the background of two fundamental facts. The first is the ever-increasing cost of modern technology, which has produced a cost of over £1,500 million for a new large aircraft carrier being ordered by the Americans, and that cost is apart from its aircraft. The cruisers to escort it will cost about £400 million each. It is clear that only the navies of the two super Powers are able to acquire such weapons systems. The cost trend presents us with a major problem for the future of the Royal Navy.
The second fundamental fact is the threat from the Soviet Union, to which reference has been made by surprisingly few hon. Members this evening. There is no doubt that this threat is increasing all the time. Powerful new ships of class after class are coming out of the Soviet yards at a high rate. One of the most worrying features is the expansion that has taken place in their capacity for future building. The rate at which they are now launching warships is only a fraction of the potential capability of the industrial complex that has been built up in their warship building yards. Admiral Gorshkov, in his writings, has said that he sees Soviet sea power as the most important


element in the Soviet arsenal to prepare the way for a Communist world. Not only do we see the new ships coming out of the shipyards and their fleets exercising at sea; we read from their Commander-in-Chief the aim of that great navy. It is against that background that the Government have made the review which has had the effect of reducing our surface fleet.
No other NATO navy can take the place of the ships that will no longer be made available by the Royal Navy. The United States navy is being increased in size, but it is greatly over-extended. For many years it was based on a strength which was hypothetically adequate to cope with one and a half oceans. Now it is committed in three oceans—the Atlantic, the Pacific and, more recently, the Indian Ocean. It is suffering gross overstretch, and it cannot make up for any gap that we may leave.
Reference was made earlier to the fact that in the Atlantic there are 80 Soviet submarines versus 94 escorts and 400 aircraft on the NATO side. In my view, the acceptable odds at sea are very different from those on land. With skilful use of terrain, a land commander can accept odds of perhaps three to one against him and survive. At sea, all the experience of two world wars has shown that the odds are the other way round. When hunting submarines, one needs odds of perhaps three to one on one's side. So the figures are grim. If one goes back to 1943, at the height of the war against the German U-boats, on a typical day there were 50 German submarines at sea in the Atlantic. Against that, we ranged 25 escort carriers, 800 escorts and 1,100 aircraft. The balance has changed very much against us since then.
The balance has also changed on land and sea, but I believe that it is more obvious at sea, because one can count the power and strength of the Soviet navy more readily than one can assess their army and air force. This is a bad time in which to be reducing any capability of the Royal Navy.
I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend. He fought a hard battle to obtain more money for the Services. I believe that he had a great deal of success in that battle. In the last stages he obtained billions more than at one time seemed possible. I congratulate not only him but the Cabinet on the collective decision to honour the NATO commitment and to increase it by 3 per cent. a year in real terms. That is more than seems likely to be forthcoming from our European allies although it is not as much as America, where the increase is likely to be 7 per cent a year in real terms. It is an honourable commitment in the present economic conditions of this country, and it is an example to our NATO allies in Europe.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the skill with which he has approached the problem in general. He is determined that we shall no longer have a facade of weapons systems which are not wholly effective because they have not been modernised or are not backed up by adequate spares or stocks of ammunition. I am sure that he is right that, whatever fighting units we have must be effective, and that the three Services must be fully effective.
The rising costs to which I referred are a problem that will not go away. My hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) made an interesting speech on the matter. However, I fear that no degree of specialisation will enable us to face the ever-increasing challenge from

the Soviet Union as long as we in the West are not prepared to increase the amount that we spend on defending ourselves by more than an arbitrary figure of 3 per cent. I wholly deplore that. The Soviet Union—a country much poorer than the West—has no such arbitrary limit. It is directing ever-increasing sums from other human needs to weapons systems and ways of expanding the power of its services, including the navy. We must face the financial consequences of that fact if we value our freedom.
The crux of the matter is in paragraph 4 of the White Paper, which states:
Our current force structure is however too large for us to meet this need within any resource allocation which our people can reasonably be asked to afford.
How much more would have been needed to retain the force structure at its present level? The House and the country are entitled to know the figure. When we know it we may say that it is so high that we agree that we cannot meet it. But let us know what the Cabinet was told about the figures when the decision was taken. Would it have meant 1p more on income tax? That would bring in £850 million a year—a not inconsiderable sum. A halfpenny would bring in £425 million. Many hon. Members, including myself, would have accepted a 1p on income tax if that increased our assurance of peace.
Britain actually spent more on defence in the 1960s than it does now. The difference between what we spent in 1968 and today in real terms is £1,200 million. If we spent today what we spent then, we would be spending £1,200 million more. That would, I am sure, have gone a very long way towards maintaining the present structure of the Navy.
Perhaps the decision on where the cuts should fall is in part because the Navy has been too secretive in the past about its operations. It is difficult to know what happens out at sea. The Navy operates hundreds of miles out into the Atlantic, away from observers and it is difficult, even for interested persons to witness it exercises far out in the Atlantic. It is a war of electronics, which is very difficult to assess. There has been no naval battle in modern times. I regret that nobody really knows what would happen. The Navy is probably not absolutely sure of what might happen when its electronic equipment is pitted against that of a sophisticated enemy. The Navy has suffered because its public relations image has not been able to show its true role in a war and has, perhaps for security reasons, been too secret. I am sure that the country appreciates the professionalism and ability of the Navy, but few appreciate its technical task and capabilities in a war.
The Navy has an important role in assisting in countering the Soviet presence in far-off waters, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend for deciding to continue to deploy the Navy in those waters. The main role in a war would, however, be to keep open the sea lanes across the Atlantic. These lanes are essential if the war on land in Europe is to continue for any length of time. If we allow a position to develop—I am not suggesting that it has developed—whereby the reduction in the naval strength in the Atlantic prevented the sea lanes from being kept open, defeat would follow in Europe regardless of what we had done to build up our forces on land.
We could not hold a Soviet blitzkrieg in Europe for any length of time without American reinforcements of men and materials. While men can be flown over the Atlantic, supplies must come by sea. American figures show that the airlift capacity on the Atlantic is 3,000 tonnes a day. One


armoured division requires 100,000 tonnes at the start. One container ship can carry as much as several days' airlifts. The sea lanes are thus vital if the war in Europe is to last for any length of time. If they were not kept open, the nuclear threshold would be reduced. I hope that my hon. Friend can assure me that that factor was taken into account in considering the reductions in the Navy. I am sure that everyone wishes the nuclear threshold to be retained at as high a level as possible.
I turn to the future shipbuilding programme. There is a great deal of concern about the future of the dockyards. I am concerned about the future of warship-building yards in British Shipbuilders.
There are to be no more half-life major refits, and the arguments advanced appear to make financial sense. It costs as much to refit a ship halfway through its life as it can cost to build a new ship. On that basis, one can understand the argument for short-life ships and this should benefit British Shipbuilders. The Trident programme must surely be the largest order ever placed with the British shipbuilding industry. Under it there will be an enormous amount of work for British Shipbuilders. However, I hope that all the implications for British Shipbuilders will soon be spelt out when decisions have been taken on the allocation of the funds available for future Royal Navy shipbuilding.
Before leaving the subject of dockyards I express the hope that the interests of Gibraltar will not be overlooked and I believe it right that Gibraltar should be mentioned in this debate. There is no Member representing Gibraltar in this place, although there are one or two who sometimes seem to be almost Members for Gibraltar. The yard has a very important role to play. One aspect is the effect on the life of the community in Gibraltar if the yard were to close. Almost everyone with an industrial bent in Gibraltar works in the yard. There is also the vital location of the yard at the entrance to the Mediterranean. Its future is surely strategically essential from the point of view of NATO, and I hope that it will not be overlooked as a result of the review.
I return to the building of warships in future. Why cannot we have a programme that spells out the detailed implications? Are a large number of frigates to be built, and are there to be a substantial number of new supply ships built? I believe that the answer is probably "Yes" to both questions. I intervened in the previous defence debate to say that if we are to maintain 50 frigates and destroyers in the active fleet, and if they are to have a life of, say, 15 years, we shall need to build three or four a year to maintain that number.
The shipbuilding programme must be a long-term exercise. It takes five years to build a ship. It can take nearly as long to design one. There is always the problem that a weapons system is out of date after about 10 years so that the weapons system is out of date on the last of a class while it still being built. That looks like being so for the type 42. By the time that the last type 42 is finished, it will carry an obsolete weapons system.
If there is not an adequate building programme in the next few years, I am convinced that the consequences for the Royal Navy will be at least as serious as the cuts that have been announced in the review. It is essential that we clear up as soon as possible any doubts about the building programme. I am worried about the effect on the size and capability of the Navy in the 1990s until such an announcement is made. If insufficient new ships are built

and if, as proposed the existing ships are not modernised, we shall have a Navy with too many obsolescent ships, and it will be inadequate to deal with the sophisticated threat from a modern enemy.
There is too much hope and too little commitment so far in the Government's expressions of opinion on these matters. We heard from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that if the resources were available he hoped that we would build more than 17 nuclear submarines. There was hope that we would buy more than seven Hunt class minesweepers. In the review the hope is expressed that we shall build one conventional-type submarine a year. There is a certainty that type 23 frigates will be built. but the number is uncertain. We are told that it depends on the resources that are available.
I am not criticising the Government for that state of affairs at this time. I think that they were right to bring out the overall results of the defence review as quickly as possible. It was essential that the main decisions were taken and the main worries confounded. However, there is a need for a further statement by the Government in the autumn. Those who work in the Navy and in British Shipbuilders are entitled to such a statement. The statement should set out in detail what the programme is to be and it should emphasise that the Government understand that after the review decisions there is need for stability and progress in the Navy's future. The main assets of the Royal Navy are the skill and expertise of those who serve in it. They are entitled to have that reassurance for the future.

Mr. Roger Moate: First, I emphasise the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). I appeal to the Government to think again—it is a last minute appeal—about the total resources allocated to the Royal Navy and of the size and strength of the Royal Navy as envisaged in the defence review. I think that more money should be made available. That should not be at the expense of Trident, or at the expense of our front-line capability on land or at sea elsewhere, but I contend that more money should be made available. It would not be necessary to provide a substantial additional amount to maintain the surface fleet at the level that was envisaged before the review was introduced.
At the very least, if we are being called upon to cut the size of our fleet the House is entitled to know how much we are saving and how much money is involved in making these sacrifices. I believe that they are the wrong sacrifices and that they should not be made. There is the sacrifice of the elimination of the third aircraft carrier, and possibly the operation of only one aircraft carrier at any one time. There is the reduction by a substantial number of our frigate and destroyer force, which is the most significant sacrifice of all. Because of some mysterious mathematics, it is difficult to know what level of escort force will be available. The early phasing out of HMS "Fearless" and "Intrepid", our specialist amphibious ships, is unnecessary. I regret very much the reduction in Royal Navy numbers by about 8,000 to 10,000.
We are being asked to make those cuts not because of some military rethinking, but because of the need for economy. If we need any evidence of that, I refer the House to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 7 July


Of course I want to see more escort ships. If we had the resources, I have no doubt that we would put some of them into the building of more frigates and destroyers."—[Official Report, 7 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 282.]
I urge the Cabinet to think again about giving those extra resources. I believe that the country would want to support the Royal Navy if those extra resources were provided, to ensure that it is able to play a stronger role in our defence and make a greater contribution to NATO.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the hunter-killer nuclear submarine programme and our ability to sustain the hunter-killer fleet and its relevance to the Chatham dockyard. If right hon. and hon. Members think that we are deploying purely a local interest it would not be a bad thing if that were so, but it is of much greater concern than that. It is asserted by the Government that the nuclear-propelled hunter-killer submarines are our most powerful vessels for maritime war. If that is so, it is our duty to ensure that the refit and refuelling capability is there to ensure that the fleet is operational and can be at sea at its maximum efficiency. The Government's action in closing the most efficient proven nuclear facility at Chatham undermines the possibility of keeping that fleet at sea.
I do not have time to deploy the many arguments that can be used—they amount to a technical argument—but I shall summarise them. As I understand it, there are about 12 hunter-killer submarines in the fleet—nuclearpropelled SSNs—with one other which has been launched but is not yet in service. There are also five submarines which are in dock and undergoing major repairs, three of which are undergoing major refits and refuelling. This is a two-year process, which cannot be reduced. Two of these are at Chatham, and one at Devonport. It is generally accepted that Chatham has proved to be the most efficient and successful dockyard for the refit of nuclear submarines.
We are entitled to ask about the nuclear submarine which Devonport has been refitting and refuelling. We are not pursuing a witch hunt at Devonport. We know that it has a major role to play in the maintenance of the SSN fleet. However, if by 1983, we expect Devonport to be refitting three nuclear submarines at one time, we are entitled to ask whether it is yet able to do that. We are entitled to point to Swiftsure, the one nuclear submarine which is being refitted at the moment. That has been at the dockyard since December 1978 and is not likely to emerge until 1983. If Devonport is to take that length of time on its first refit, why should we be confident that by 1983, with all the problems of the closure of Chatham, it will be able to handle three nuclear submarines at any one time?
Without denigrating the work force, we must recognise that there have been major industrial problems at Devonport. It takes years to build up the expertise and ability to handle one of the most complex and technological tasks that confront any industrial operation, and it is folly—grossly excessive optimism at the very least—to believe that we can reach that position by 1983.
It is expected that Chatham naval dockyard will cease to accept further nuclear submarines by 1983. There will be no more work done thereafter. That being so, in 1982–83 Devonport, which at present has one submarine

in for refit, will be expected to take three nuclear submarines for refit, in addition to other intermediate servicing and contingencies. It will not be able to cope.
According to my figures—if I had time I could spell the case out ship by ship—four nuclear submarines will be awaiting refit by 1983. We have been told that there is a risk. In fact, we have been told that there is always a risk. Although many of my hon. Friends have rightly accepted the philosophy that there are too many dockyards, I believe that the risk that they are endorsing is that by 1982 and beyond a queue of nuclear submarines—the backbone of our maritime effort—will be waiting for refuelling and refit, with their nuclear cores expired, simply because we have taken an irresponsible decision to press into Devonport an intensified and excessively ambitious nuclear programme with which it cannot cope.
I therefore urge the Government to think again about the time scale. I believe that they have got it wrong. My hon. Friends probably know in their hearts that they are taking a hell of a risk and that they have probably got it wrong. If they have got it wrong in that respect, they may have got it wrong in other respects. That is why I appeal to the Government to think again.

Mr. Mates: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will address us again, by leave of the House. I do not wish to deny him leave to speak again, but perhaps you will point out to him that in this place we conduct debates and not harangues. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 28 minutes, made several combative and aggressive remarks and constantly refused any efforts—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The content of a speech by a Front Bench spokesman is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mates: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not asking you to tell the hon. Gentleman about the content of his speech, but rather about the fact that he constantly refused to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of that is relevant.

Mr. George Robertson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have great sympathy with much of what the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) may feel that it is wrong to be combative, but many of the combative tendencies against the Govermment have come from Conservative Members. It is certainly par for the course to give way twice in a speech that lasted only eight minutes longer than the speech of the hon. Member for Petersfield.
The hon. Member for Faversham raised some concrete and realistic problems about Chatham dockyard and the ability of the renewed dockyard structure to cope with the problems that will be faced by the new SSN fleet. This is not an unimportant matter, as the Government clearly intend to depend on the SSN fleet for the backbone of the new "haircut" Navy. Therefore, the risk that has been admitted by the Minister must be assessed and taken into account.
It will not be beyond the Minister's memory that yesterday at Question Time I asked him a question about


the refit of HMS "Dreadnought". I asked whether it was true that last week that refit had been offered to Chatham dockyard. The Minister replied:
As for 'Dreadnought', we are not ready yet to make an announcement about the future workload in Chatham, but we hope to do so soon."—[Official Report, 21 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 157.]
Twenty-four hours later the Minister of State tells us that the "Dreadnought" refit is being offered to Chatham dockyard. Leaving aside defence Question Time yesterday, the fact is that Chatham dockyard was offered that refit last week because Devonport cannot at present take that submarine, which should have gone there for its refit.
What the Minister did not tell us today is that there is considerable reluctance among both management and men in Chatham dockyard to take "Dreadnought", because at the same time as they are being asked to carry out that refit and to rescue the Government from the present crisis they are being told that they must run down and shut the dockyard in the next two years. I do not make these statements off the top of my head or on hearsay evidence. The authority comes from the chairman of the Chatham dockyard Whitley committee, who reliably informs me that that is the state of affairs. I see the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) nod in assent, so that is her information too.
The crisis and the risks that have been admitted and are now being played down are already upon us. The concern expressed by the hon. Member for Faversham, which was expressed also by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) and indeed the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink), who mentioned the general problem of the dockyard capacity, is therefore genuine and real, and no real reassurance has been given so far. We can only hope that there will be a better response from the Undersecretary of State later today.
Much has been made of the Opposition's stance on defence, almost as a defensive mechanism against the serious splits displayed on the Government side throughout the debate. Some Government supporters, including the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who has now decided to rejoin us, seem to believe that one simply throws money at a problem and invents a policy, and that a policy is synonymous with greater expenditure, although we are told week after week by the Prime Minister that throwing money at problems does not solve them
By saying that defence expenditure will be increased, albeit by spending on the Trident programme, the Government expect us to believe that by virtue of that fact alone the defence capability of this country will be improved. Nothing of the sort is the case. The Government still have to convince the House and the country that their review will mean a strengthening of the defence of this country, and not simply an arithmetical calculation to prove that more money will be spent next year than was spent last year.
We have yet to hear from the Government the costs and the savings involved in this major defence review. It is remarkable that the Government can come to the House with a review of devastating proportions, affecting thousands of jobs and involving the closure of the dockyards and the reshaping of the Royal Navy, and still not tell us how much they will save on their programme

as a result. That is disgraceful, and those who are trying to make a virtue of the openness of the Government have a great deal to answer for on that subject alone.

Mr. Trippier: There seems to be some confusion on the Conservative side about the Opposition's position on defence policy generally. We understand that the last Labour Party conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of unilateral disarmament. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that he did not agree with that. We want to know the view of Her Majesty's Opposition, namely, the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Mr. Robertson: The resolution carried with the largest majority at last year's Labour Party conference—by more than 6 million votes to fewer than 1 million—was a motion in support of NATO. That is the common cord of the official Opposition. But the one view on which we are totally and completely united is that the review makes no defence sense whatsoever.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party is quoted as having said at a meeting of the national executive committee of the Labour Party today that if the policies expressed at that meeting were followed it would involve coming out of NATO? So what is the policy about NATO?

Mr. Robertson: I have told the House of the policy of the Labour Party, as expressed at last year's annual conference. I am not a member of the national executive committee of the Labour Party and I am not in a position to judge what it may have decided at its meeting today. It is the Government's defence review that is up for judgment. We have seen today, as we have seen in every defence debate that we have had this year, major and serious structural splits between Conservative Members, never mind any differences of opinion that may exist on the Labour Benches.
When the Labour Government were in office, much was made by Her Majesty's then loyal Opposition about morale in the Services. There was great trumpeting about the perceived decline in the morale of Service men throughout the country. The incoming Conservative Government said that they would link Service men's pay to inflation—a pledge that they immediately carried out. But at that point they stopped trying to build morale in the Armed Forces. Several hon. Members—even the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) who was a former Navy Minister—have said that morale is in decline. That is a serious underestimate of the state of morale in the Royal Navy, suffering as it is under the burden placed on it by the Government, with a cutting back of its major capabilities and with uncertainty about the future.
Another small sign of the way in which the Government treat the Forces—and especially those in the Royal Navy—is that there will be considerable changes in the life-style of about 18,000 naval families, because the Government have decided to change the system of the weekly allotments paid to them. It would appear to be part of the great efficiency drive on which the Government have embarked. Unilaterally a decision has been taken that the allotments are to be paid monthly and by cheque. That will have serious consequences for many people, and we have had representations on the subject. That one small decision by the Government will impinge on 18,000


families, and it characterises the way in which the Government treat people who have given loyal service to the Navy, and to whom many hon. Members on each side have paid tribute in the debate.

Mr. Viggers: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Government have given pensions for the first time to 13,000 pre-1950 Service widows, it having been said by the Labour Government that it was administratively impossible to do so?

Mr. Robertson: I have already given credit to the Government for linking Service men's pay to inflation, and there are other things that the Government have done. But morale is not simply about pay. It is about fighting men and fighting women in the Forces having the ability to do the job. Morale is at an all-time low in the Royal Navy, and no one can get away from that.
Time is severely restricted and I must allow the Minister the chance to reply to some of the critics on the Conservative Benches, but I should like briefly to mention the size of the fleet. Hon. Members have expressed genuine and deep concern about the future of naval ordering. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), and also my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) and Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) are deeply concerned about the future of thousands and thousands of shipbuilding jobs that depend on the Government's ship ordering programme.
It is not good enough to come to the House with a series of what appear to be platitudes, such as "Orders are about to be placed", "Orders will be placed as soon as possible" and "Orders will be placed as soon as we have some money". Presumably, orders will be placed in the first year in which cash limits do not affect the purchasing power of the Ministry of Defence. Some of our yards are dependent upon naval ordering and it is crucial for them to know whether there will be long-term continuity of work.
The hon. Member for Woking gave me a fairly patronising lecture on the basics of defence, as he sees it. He is sometimes a member of the minority, even on the Conservative Benches. He told me about the dockyard study and implied that I had not read it. I have read it. The Secretary of State must have read it, because he made a fulsome reference to it in the last debate. It stated clearly that one of the prices that would be paid for a short-life fleet—the option that the Secretary of State has taken on board—would be continuity of ordering and large batches of orders. It stated that new ships had to be coming on stream before one could have a short-life fleet. That means that orders have to be placed for a frigate that has not yet got over the Ministry of Defence's bureaucratic hurdles. After 1985, almost three type 23 frigates will have to be ordered per year.
If the shipyards are to comply with the Secretary of State's objective of a short-life fleet, orders must be placed at a time that will save the shipyards from decline and closure. That will ensure that the Secretary of State's targets are maintained if the fleet size is kept at 50. There has been much questioning—significantly by Conservative Members—of the Government's defence review. I do not apologise for reiterating one point. We have yet to hear from the Government how much will be saved at the expense of our Royal Navy. I hope that the Minister will tell us. By how much will the amount spent

on defence be short of the amount that the Government intended to spend? If we receive some answers from the Government, we shall be able to judge the amount of damage that the Government have done, not only to the Royal Navy's surface fleet, but to the morale and fighting stance of those who man that Service.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Philip Goodhart): My hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) devoted parts of their speeches to the importance of a degree of specialisation within the Alliance. In theory, I agree with them. I have made speeches on some of the points that they made so eloquently today. However, I suspect that the cause of specialisation within the Alliance has faced certain setbacks. Those setbacks are partly based on financial grounds. With the increasing cost of high technology—which hon. Member after hon. Member has referred to—Treasuries in all the countries of the Alliance are unwilling to accept the type of forward commitment necessary if specialisation is to mean anything.
As we were told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the cause of specialisation suffered a further setback this afternoon at the hands of the Labour Party. I have a news agency tape in front of me which says that the leader of the Labour Party failed in an attempt to defer a decision at a meeting of the national executive committee on a defence document which calls on future Labour Governments to close all nuclear bases on British soil. The Deputy Leader of the official Opposition said:
If this document goes to conference as it now is, all our sister parties would assume that we were moving away from NATO, especially if we said we were going to expel all bases from the United Kingdom.
There cannot possibly be any talk of specialisation within the Alliance while that sort of political threat hangs over us and over it.
The main thrust of the debate has turned on the proposed closure of Chatham dockyard and the drastic thinning down of strength at Portsmouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), in a powerful speech, reminded the House that while this was a crucial matter it was not new, and had been discussed many times in past years. Captain Stephen Roskill wrote a letter to The Times, much quoted in recent weeks, shortly before the defence decisions were taken, arguing that the fleet was to be cut
while the excessively numerous and grossly overmanned Royal Dockyards are to remain relatively intact obviously because they command most electoral votes".
This issue was discussed many times in the 1920s. I understand why previous Governments and this Government have been exceedingly reluctant to make decisions of this sort. Experience has shown that if one is to get substantial savings a whole dockyard has to be shut down, or virtually shut down, which must inevitably have a devastating effect on the careers of many men and women who have given years of loyal service to the Crown.
Inevitably, the choice between special skills, physical size and the right location is difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) and others have rightly raised the question of what would happen if there


were problems at Devonport, and to a lesser extent at Rosyth, which meant that they could not handle the streams of SSN refits that would be needed.
On the physical state of the dockyards, there is no doubt that Devonport could handle more than three streams with some comparatively minor modifications, such as additional power lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked whether that could be done now. The answer is "Yes", but it would mean some strengthening of the management team.

Sir Frederick Burden: I find my hon. Friend difficult to follow when he says it could be done now if the management were strengthened and if other things were done. What are the "ifs"? How long would they take to implement?

Mr. Goodhart: Some members of the management team working in Chatham who have the expertise can, in the course of time, be expected to move to the Devonport area to provide the benefit of their expertise there. There seems little doubt that we can recruit the skilled craftsmen concerned. We have already had many applications from former apprentices who wish to return.

Mrs. Fenner: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but this is the area in which we find it difficult to accept his answers unless he can state them categorically. I understand that the expertise that will eventually help Devonport to carry out three schemes is in Chatham and that until 1984 Chatham will be using that expertise on submarines. Can my hon. Friend therefore repeat that Devonport can do it now, without the experts from Chatham? Are those experts to go now? If so, what will happen to the submarines at Chatham?

Mr. Goodhart: There is no question of that happening at the moment, but we seem to be at cross purposes. The physical structures are there and many of the skilled craftmen are already working in Devonport. More can be recruited in the very near future. The shortage is at the higher management level and one expects some transfer of personnel from Chatham to Devonport in the months and years ahead. Expertise must be built up at the middle management level.
There are risks of delays. But unless we duplicate or triplicate every system, there must always be risks of delays. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham pointed out that Devonport has not yet completed the refit of a nuclear submarine. However, Vice-Admiral Pillar made it clear to the Select Committee on Defence last week that he was confident that that could be done by late 1983. It would be overly pessimistic to plan on the assumption that the sort of industrial dispute that held up the refit of "Swiftsure" will be repeated.
Of course, there will be difficulties, but I do not think that it helps the work force of Chatham to hold out hope that the decision will be reversed by future Ministers of Defence.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend says that it would be wrong to hold out hope that the decision will be reversed, but we have arranged a meeting for next week in the hope that the arguments that we shall deploy will persuade the Ministry to change the decision. I hope that my hon. Friend is not saying that that meeting will be fruitless.

Mr. Goodhart: I have seen the record of the meeting that my hon. Friend had with my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State. It would not be helpful to my hon. Friend's constituents for him to hold out hope that there is any chance of a reversal.
The hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), who wound up for the Opposition our previous defence debate, was directly challenged on whether a Labour Government would reopen Chatham or re-expand Portsmouth. He said:
We would expand the economy, and we hope that any slack taken up in defence could be used for other, more productive industries."—[Official Report, 7 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 344.]
I regard that answer as meaningless, and it cannot be interpreted as even the weakest pledge to do anything to change the status of the dockyards.
I take the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) about apprentices and redundancies. Redundancy pay for the industrial work force in the dockyards will, regardless of the final arrangements, be determined to a considerable extent by earnings in the last 12 months of employment. The trade unions and the management have an interest in seeing that the rundown is orderly, with an adequate work load. Of course, that will require close planning. I hope that the trade unions will be prepared for detailed discussions in the near future.
My hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) and for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) have raised in the House and in letters to The Times the issues of the heavyweight torpedo, radar, and the importance of reaching early decisions on procurement and also "buying British". I recognise that any major equipment decisions have technical, financial and political ingredients. It is right that the powerful points that were made about unemployment should be taken into account. A balance of 3,000 jobs could be at stake.
Over the years, officials and senior officers in the Ministry of Defence, as well as leading industrialists, have complained that American procurement policies have been dominated by the numerous Senate and Congressional Committees operating in defence. I am sure that my hon. Friends would not want or expect us to settle procurement issues of that importance by exchanges at the end of a debate, but we note the points that they have made.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gosport, for Buckingham and for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), and the hon. Member for Attercliffe asked about the type 23 frigate and simpler methods of construction. Everyone says that he has always been in favour of smaller, cheaper vessels. It seems that Admiral Jellicoe was the last person to be in favour of large expensive ships. But this is a comparatively new fashion, because, as the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) reminded us in the earlier defence debate, the Labour Government were trying to achieve the agreement of the Admirals to a vessel similar to the type 23 frigate in 1978. The hon. Member for Attercliffe reminded us at some length of what a good Navy Minister he was. Perhaps he recalls that he lost that battle with the admirals.
Inevitably, the debate has taken place against a background of controversy, but when all is said and done we shall retain a strong, balanced and flexible fleet, as well as increasing the numbers of nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines and maritime control aircraft. We shall also seek to maintain destroyer and frigate numbers at about 50.
We shall introduce the new type 23 frigate as early as possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] As early as possible. We hope to give an order by the middle of this decade and we hope that the first will be in service well before the end of the decade. We shall order these vessels as fast as resources allow.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Goodhart: No.
Together with our decision to end mid-life modernisation, this will, in due course, reduce the average age of ships in the fleet and allow a larger number to be operational for a given size of front line. We shall introduce a new class of diesel-engined patrol submarine. We shall enhance our defensive mining and mine countermeasure capability with the introduction of new mines and a new class of mine hunter.

Mr. Trotter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Goodhart: I think that I had better press on. I have given way to a substantial number of hon. Members.
I note that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) did not give way in his opening speech. A number of interesting questions might have been put to him. If the hon. Member wishes to maintain his loyalty to his party's policy of reducing defence expenditure by £3,500 million a year, where will he get the extra money for the extra ships that he seems to hanker after?
If he wants more ships to be built, let him say where the money is coming from. If he wants more jobs in the defence industry, let him say where the money is coming from. Some of us are getting fed up with the humbug that we hear from the Opposition Benches. The Opposition's criticism of the Government is not credible."—[Official Report, 7 July 1981, Vol. 8, c. 311.]

Mr. Brynmor John: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Goodhart: No. The words were spoken by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in the last defence debate. Since then we have heard three Front Bench speeches from the Opposition and we have had no reply of any sort from the Opposition about how

they intend to raise the extra money. Is it any surprise that the right hon. Member for Devonport left the Labour Party in disgust?
I close with one brief quotation. It is this:
The important thing … is to see that the organisation is as taut and efficient as possible so that resources and manpower are not wasted … This Government, notwithstanding the severe economic difficulties facing us as a nation, are implementing the NATO target of an increase of 3 per cent. in defence spending in real terms … However, with the cost of high technology and high quality weapons … there are difficult decisions of priorities that we have to make in our defence expenditure."—[Official Report, 19 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 1828.]
Those were the closing words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) in the Navy debate last year. They set the scene in which we, I believe, have successfully reviewed the defence—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed by paragraphs (7) and (11) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) to put at that hour.

DEFENCE AND CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1981–82 (OUTSTANDING VOTES)

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £42,562,734,300 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1982, as set out in House of Commons Papers 190, 193, 266, 381, 382 and 405.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Nigel Lawson and Mr. Peter Rees.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Mr. Leon Brittan accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending 31 March 1982 to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 178].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments in lieu of certain Commons Amendments to the Contempt of Court Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Orders of the Day — Contempt of Court Bill [Lords]

Lords amendments in lieu of Commons amendments, considered.

Clause 8

PUBLICATION OF JURY'S DELIBERATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 26, leave out "subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "subsection (3)".

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is unfortunate that the whole of the debate on clause 8 has proceeded on what I believe to be the wholly false basis that it permits things to be done to or by jurors which were not permitted before. That was never the case. All that the clause as printed does, and has ever been intended to do, is to close the door opened by the decision in the New Statesman case by preventing publication of details of juries' deliberations in identified cases. The rest of the law regarding the secrecy of the jury room was wholly unaffected, but there appeared to be some doubts on this score and suggestions that somehow, by implication, the clause permitted everything which it did not prohibit. Therefore, the Government moved amendments in this House on Report to make it clear beyond argument that the clause carried no such implications.
However, those amendments were rejected in another place. Instead, we have in Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 a new and complete prohibition on the publishing of any details of a jury's deliberations. Thus, not only would it be prohibited to publish anonymous reminiscences but all forms of publication of the results of research would also be prohibited. Also, by Lords amendment No. 2 we would have imposed a complete ban on private disclosures, which would not only stop the first stages of any research but would extend to cover every possible kind of disclosure or request for information, even on purely social or domestic occasions. Therefore, the amendments, taken as a whole, would turn the clause into a catch-all provision.
I do not like the creation of criminal offences which will never be enforced. If we legislate to create a criminal offence, it should not be on the basis that I, for example, as Attorney-General, will interfere so as to prevent it from going to court.
I wish to put the record straight on one point, about which a great deal has been said. From time to time it has been asserted that all legal opinion on the question is one way, namely, in favour of the amendment. However, the Law Society has always taken the view that clause 8 as originally drafted was right on the ground, among others, that it would permit studies of and research into the behaviour of juries. I said on Third Reading that that was a useful thing to do. However, because of the strength of feeling that has been expressed in both Houses, the Government do not wish to oppose the amendments any further. I cannot continue swimming against the tide of opinion which has now so clearly been expressed.
It is an important Bill. Clause 8 was never a central part of it. It was included only because I wished to deal with the decision of the Divisional Court in the New Statesman


case. Clause 8 is never so important that we can risk endangering the passage of the Bill as a whole. Further disagreement between our House and another place could do that.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not recall ever hearing that argument advanced to the House before. Is the Attorney-General really saying that, although he fundamentally disapproves of the form in which the Lords have produced their amendment, simply because of shortage of time—with the overspill period there is plenty of time—he, on behalf of the Government, will advise the House to vote for the amendment?

The Attorney-General: It is important to remember that the Bill basically deals with contempt of court. In a sense, clause 8 is a bastard because it was introduced as a result of the Divisional Court decision. I must tell the House, as I said on Report, that I respect the enormous and overwhelming view of those who must deal with juries. I respect the view of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. I listened with care to some of their splendid speeches. Feelings were expressed from behind me. There were speeches by distinguished Law Lords and others, including ex-Lord Chancellors. All the Law Lords, save one, took the same view. I cannot disregard the opinions of those who have experience far greater than mine.

Mr. Bob Cryer: They are not jurors.

The Attorney-General: They may not have been jurors, but they have sat as judges in cases dealing with juries. The hon. Gentleman has never done that. It is not a case of a journalist's approach or a barrister's approach. We must look realistically at the matter and accept, as far as we think it right, the opinions of those who have to deal with such cases.
Bearing in mind the provision that enables proceedings to be brought only with the consent of the Attorney-General on the motion of the courts, although it may not be an ideal talisman—as it is seen in some quarters—it apparently and obviously provides some safeguard.

Mr. Keith Best: What has confused some hon. Members is that my right hon. and learned Friend argued persuasively in earlier debates that he has been informed that jury deliberations should be looked at, provided that individual proceedings could not be identified. There is a consensus ad idem on both sides of the House that that should be the case. That was enshrined in the original Bill. At that time he argued that there should be an ability to review the jury process. Now he is saying that that is not so important. Apart from the weight of opinion in another place, what has led him to change his view?

The Attorney-General: One reason for my change of view is that on Report we did not—perhaps that was the Government's fault—table an alternative amendment that would have provided for some degree of review, investigation and research into the jury process but which prevented the sort of attack upon the jury that was presented so persuasively by the Opposition Front Bench. We had not a good half-way house. In permitting what I think were legitimate inquiries into the jury system we were going far beyond that which was described both in this House and in another place.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: If we now have a good half-way house, as I hope to demonstrate to the House that we have, does the Attorney-General think that that should be supported?

The Attorney-General: I have considered the right hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment. With great respect to his skill in drafting, I do not think that it provides a half-way house. I think that it goes back almost entirely to the original Bill before another place amended it. I should have liked an amendment that did not create the stupid, silly criminal offences arising, for example, from a discussion over the dinner table or a juror returning to his home and talking to his wife or to the neighbour over the fence. I should have liked to see some measure of research into juries taking place under strict control. As I said in Committee, there were useful things to be learnt. I think that the report that we saw should be compulsory reading for every pupil at the Bar. It gives one a good idea of the pitfalls that face any young barrister conducting his first or early cases before a jury.
We were left with one alternative or the other. I cannot disregard the opposition that has been maintained both in this place and in another place by those who have great experience in these matters and who almost without exception have taken the view that the Government's original view of the clause was wrong.
In the circumstances, I must advise the House to agree to the amendments.

Mr. John Morris: I welcome the gracious approach of the Attorney-General at this juncture of the Bill in that he does not seek to remove the amendment carried in another place. The key to the amendment was the removal of the offending subsection (2). The amendment was moved in another place by Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, a distinguished lawyer who played a sterling role with others in persuading their Lordships to accept the amendment. If anyone has a proud record on individual rights, it is Lord Hutchinson. He would not ignore the rights of individuals.
The line that the Government are now accepting is similar to the one that the Opposition took in Committee. Had the Opposition's amendment been selected on Report, it would have been the line that we would have supported on Report. Unhappily, our amendment was not selected. In its place was selected an amendment moved ably by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). On the basis that the half loaf that he proposed—that of requiring the consent of the Attorney-General—was better than no bread at all, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I supported the hon. and learned Gentleman, as did the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), when the House divided.
In fairness to the Attorney-General and the gracious manner in which he has conceded the weight of opinion from the Opposition and from lawyers—I believe that the only lawyer to speak against the amendment was a Law Lord—an awareness of the dangers involved in subsection (2) has evolved. That was not apparent to me when I first read the Bill. I was not aware of the extent of the danger.
10.15 pm
There has been an evolution of awareness of the dangers of subsection (2). I confess that, although I made warning noises in my Second Reading speech, the full implication of it did not dawn on me, not even in


Committee. I pay a tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) for the brilliant speech which he made on Report in support of the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde, who rendered sterling service to the House in ensuring that, while at that time we did not get what we wanted, at least the issue was before us. We were dealing with a critical and crucial aspect of jury service and at least we were making some limitation on what I regarded as a real danger.
Every judge and petitioner to whom I have spoken since the matter was first canvassed has said in the strongest terms that real dangers would arise if the original position proposed by the Government were adhered to. I remind the House that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery quoted part of a quotation of Blackstone. I shall give a slightly longer quotation. This is the warning given more than two centuries ago by Blackstone. He said of juries:
So that the liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladium remains secret and inviolate … from secret machinations which may sap and undermine it … and however convenient these may appear at first … though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread.
That is the danger.

Mr. David Mellor: I am sure that we all revere Blackstone, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that standards of scrutiny which were thought right to be given to institutions at the time of Blackstone are the standards of scrutiny which we should expect today?

Mr. Morris: Of course not. That is the last thing that I should suggest. I was praying in aid the warnings given the best part of two centuries ago and reiterated today by all who took part in a debate in another place. They were distinguished lawyers with long experience of presenting cases. I was praying that in aid as a warning given a long time ago. Anyone who has read the original words, as I am sure the hon. Member did at some point in his student career, will know that the matter is spelt out at length and that the warning is given.

Mr. Best: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that all those who spoke in the other place in favour of the amendment are convinced about the validity of the jury system. They need no further recommendation. What succour can the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer to those in the general public who are less convinced about the efficacy of the jury system and who would find it beneficial to have it tested, so long as it does not identify the individual proceedings or defendants concerned, in order to ascertain its true efficacy?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps taken soundings from some of his constituents who have had the onerous task of serving on juries. They would be the test men in this matter. I wish to end my speech by saying how onerous service on a jury is. In some of the major criminal trials, some of the biggest thugs in the land are involved and far too many people come to the courts, sit in the galleries and roam around. I am sure that there are jury men and jury women who deliberate there not entirely without fear removed from their minds. Anyone who has been involved, as I am sure many hon. Members have been, must be fully aware of that position. I do not want

to digress to the position in Northern Ireland. I shall say no more about that. The hon. Member might look over the Irish Sea at the situation there.
There is a great difficulty about finding a convenient half-way house. If there were one, I am sure that the Government would have exercised their mind and produced it. They rejected the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde, and it would be the thin end of the wedge if this amendment were rejected.
Jury service is onerous service. Today, in particular trials, some juries must be guarded day and night. Jury men have suffered considerable illnesses because of the strain. Anyone who ignores that kind of service does so without any awareness or realisation of the kind of service that is carried out by our constituents. Our people must discharge this great service to their countrymen.
Contrary to the implication in the remarks of the hon. Member for Anglesey, I regard the jury as one of the great bastions of our liberty. I do so whatever its defects It may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time. It has worked, warts and all. In spite of our disagreement from time to time with the decisions reached by certain juries it is a system of which we can be proud. It has been exported across the common law world, and unless one is absolutely satisfied that greater good will come from touching it, one does so at ones peril.
No one who studied our proceedings in Committee will suggest that I or my hon. Friends are anti-press. We have fought with might and main to persuade the Government, sometimes with success, to do what we could to protect and ensure a free press. Frequently it was a matter of balance. Time after time, after much consideration, we fought to ensure that a free press could exercise itself in the interests of the liberty of the subject.
But here I draw a line, and this is not anti-press in any shape or form. Anyone who has studied our record in Committee will acquit us of that. Along with my right hon. Friends I visited the Lord Chancellor to discuss this matter, and I asked "Who wants it?" I fear that there was a far from clear response from the Lord Chancellor. I have yet to be told where the pressure has come from. I have yet to be told who wants this subsection.
It may well be said—the Attorney-General suggested it by implication, if not directly—that there is a danger of trivial prosecutions. But the whole tenor of the Bill has been changed by the way in which the Attorney-General, rightly and properly, accepted our amendment that there should be no prosecution under the Bill without his consent.
I am the first to concede that that is not the perfect way of legislating. But it has been done in the past. There has been legislation whose length and breadth has been uncertain. There have been many regulations, certainly those drafted in war time, whose ambit was uncertain. Frequently, the need for the Attorney-General's consent was inserted.
I am the first to concede the possibility that these will be stupid and trivial prosecutions, but that position is now protected. It is not a perfect way of doing so, but it is the best that we can do in the circumstances.

Mr. Christopher Price: It is important for the House to define what it would regard as a stupid and frivolous prosecution and what it would regard as a serious prosecution. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that folk as distinguished as Katharine Whitehorn, Simon


Hoggart, Alan Coren and Graham Greene have written quite a lot, entirely disguising the cases at issue, about their experiences of being on juries. At first sight, the amendment would cut out all that for ever more. Would a prosecution against someone of that kind in my right hon. and learned Friend's view come into the category of stupid and frivolous prosecution?

Mr. Morris: Certainly, reminiscences in the Graham Greene vein would not at first blush seem to me to be of a kind to be in contravention of the Bill. It would be for the Attorney-General of the day to ensure that there is both fairness and consistency and that the law is not brought into ridicule. That is why in Committee—with my hon. Friend's support, if I remember correctly—we inserted the provision that the Attorney-General's consent was necessary not only in this matter but across the whole range of prosecutions for contempt.
My constituents called to serve on juries should not have additional service to carry out. Both their verdict and their service should be final. That finality should not be breached by any additional burden. I so recommend to the House.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I first express my gratitude to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for his generous remarks about my attempts to alter what I believe to be a damaging and dangerous state of the law as expressed in the Bill when we first considered it on Report. I am very sorry that the Government were not then able to accept some amendments. I agree that the amendment that I sought to persuade the Government to accept was a half-way house. Indeed, my personal choice would have been an amendment of the character later imported into the legislation by the other place.
In my view, there is no doubt that the Bill when it went to the other place was the subject of universal disquiet, for very good reason. I think that the prospect of juries being interrogated by inquisitive lawyers, sociologists, dissatisfied litigants or indeed mischievous litigants disturbed us all.
I take this opportunity to join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on the way in which he has, if I may borrow the term, so graciously accepted the overwhelming view of the House and another place about the need to have some means of putting the law into a proper state. There is no doubt that the abuse of interrogation of jurors would, as I put it when I ventured to address the House on the last occasion, bring the trial by jury system into danger of collapse. I do not think that that is hyperbole, and I do not resile in any way from what I said then.
A learned Law Lord reminded the other place of the words of Baron Bramwell, whom he rightly described as one of our greatest judges:
If juries had to give reasons for their verdict, trial by a jury would not last five years".
I believe that that is just about right. If juries had to give reasons for their verdicts, juries themselves would be on trial, and juries themselves would frequently be in fear of letting their opinions be known freely in the jury room. It

does not need much imagination to envisage what might happen. There would undoubtedly be abuse where there was a retrial.
For all these reasons, I have a sense of pleasure, mixed with relief, in welcoming the new amendment, and I am delighted to know that the Government are prepared to accept it.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I wish that I were in a position to join the general chorus of acclaim for the amendments which have come to us from the other place, but I am not. I detected that the Attorney-General, who is usually extremely persuasive, was perhaps a little less persuasive than usual. It may well be that that was because he performed his task with a slightly heavy heart. If so, I do not blame him. Neither he nor I, of course, would seek to do other than echo the general sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardiner) about the general principle that jurors should not be bullied, bludgeoned or persuaded into revealing the secrets of the jury room. That is a principle that we must all safeguard. But none of the speeches to which I have listened so far has been addressed to the serious issue—something that I believe to be perhaps not as important as that general principle but none the less extremely important—of how we should allow the jury system to be fully and properly investigated without breaching the secrecy of the jury room in particular cases but in a way which enables successive generations to see whether the system is working in the way that it should and, if it is not, to put it right.
I do not believe that anyone in the House would disagree with the view that it is desirable to carry out that objective. What amazes me is the way in which we have reached the present position. This is a Bill which originated in another place and I have before me the Bill as it came here originally from another place. The title in the margin against clause 8 reads "Publication of jury's deliberations". In other words, it was concerned simply with the publication of the deliberations of the jury. In the explanatory memorandum I find it spelt out in detail that the purpose of clause 8 is simply to deal with the publication of information about the deliberations of a jury and to make that a contempt of court.
I further find in the Bill as it came from the other place originally a safeguard—this is the real issue before the House tonight—which protected proper research, because by virtue of subsection (2) it provided that the contempt of court should not be applicable to
publications which do not identify the particular proceedings in which the deliberations of the jury took place",
and so on. The Bill has come from the other place and seeks to make it a contempt to publish a jury's deliberations. However, it safeguards a provision in favour of research. I was not a member of the Committee, but I understand that the Bill was not amended in Committee. On Report the Attorney-General moved an amendment, which the House accepted without a Division. Its sole purpose was to safeguard the situation so that no one could think that by dealing with publication we were in some way legitimising any other form of "getting at" a jury.
The Bill was sent to the other place with that sole amendment. The other place used the opportunity afforded by the safeguarding amendment to alter fundamentally the character of the clause. It is no longer the same and deals


not merely with publication but with any attempt—[Interruption.]—to obtain information from a jury. It removes the safeguard that the other place had been prepared to accept—[Interruption.]—at first. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) wishes to take part in the debate, he will have an opportunity to do so later.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: rose—

Mr. Silkin: At the moment my hon. and learned Friend should keep his seat and keep his mouth closed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order.

Mr. Silkin: It is not at all helpful to make interventions from a recumbent position.

Mr. Thomas: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Silkin: I have not been asked before.

Mr. Thomas: I stood up.

Mr. Silkin: Very well.

Mr. Thomas: Without being offensive, may I suggest that, if my right hon. and learned Friend had had more experience of addressing juries in the last 20 years, his advice to the House would carry more weight? At present, a case is being heard at the Central Criminal Court. The members of the jury are being guarded night and day. Because of the strain of the trial, one member of the jury has had a heart attack and has been discharged from the jury. Does my right hon. and learned Friend really think it right that in such cases members of juries should be given the additional burden of having to reveal the secrets of the jury room afterwards?

Mr. Silkin: When my hon. and learned Friend rose to intervene I had thought that he wished to deal with something that I had been talking about. I am not prepared to interrupt the thread of my remarks to deal with something that I have not discussed. I was discussing the way in which the provision has come to us in a completely different form from its original one. The clause is completely different. As a result of that change the clause heading "Publication of jury's deliberations" is no longer appropriate. However, that is the very least of my criticisms. More importantly, it nullifies the very provision that was included when the Bill was first sent to this House from the other place, namely, the power to enable those who legitimately wish to carry out research and to publish it without disclosing the cases involved, to do so. As a result of the Attorney-General's harmless amendment, that power has been washed out.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I wish to ask a simple question out of natural curiosity. What is the point of research?

Mr. Silkin: The point of the research is presumably that which the Government had in mind when they made provision for it in the Bill in the first place and it passed through the other place and through this House without amendment. Only at the second bite of the cherry, arising totally fortuitously in the other place, are doubts cast about the value of the research. The value of the research is exactly as I have stated it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the products of the research to which he refers is the perception that majority verdicts were required?

Mr. Silkin: That may have been one of the advantages in the past. It needs hardly to be stated that as a result of finding out what a jury may think in a collection of cases one may discover the ways in which their minds work, the responses that they may give to particular types of summing-up, the responses that they may give in relation to particular types of offence and the responses that they may give in relation to particular methods in which they are addressed by members of the Bar. There are many ways in which this kind of research can be of value.
I am not saying that such research will necessarily transform the whole system. The sanctity of the jury system is the most important matter. None the less, the ability of people to carry out research is also important. That has been accepted throughout the entire proceedings on the Bill until the fortuitous stage of a second bite at the cherry in another place is reached.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to convey the point that this is the first time any opposition has been heard on this point, he is gravely wrong. The opposition expressed was very forcible. It may not have been successful so far as voting is concerned. Good sense was no doubt used in Committee. However, the strength of feeling expressed by hon. Members in Committee—the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not take part—was considerable. No doubt the decision reached by their Lordships reflected in good degree their consideration of the strength of the arguments in Committee in this House.

Mr. Silkin: I do not dissent from what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I do not wish to keep repeating myself. However, here we have a Bill that goes through a number of stages without amendment. Then, by pure chance, on an amendment moved by the Attorney-General, a particular clause is fundamentally altered. This is a matter that the House should have regard to. In his opening remarks, the Attorney-General appeared to suggest, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), that there must be some finality. Of course there must be some finality, but finality that arises in such a fortuitous way is not the best of precedents in dealing with legislation in the future.
The reality of the issue is not solely the passionate defence of the jury system that fell from the lips of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). It is solely the issue of whether we should make some provision or retain the original provision, amended if necessary, to ensure that those who wish to carry out legitimate research are enabled to do so without fear that they will be in contempt of court as a result. Does any hon. Member believe that those who genuinely want to do so should be branded as being in contempt of court? I do not think so.
10.45 pm
How can such people be safeguarded? The only safeguard in the clause is that if the Attorney-General decides that he should not give his consent to proceedings for contempt of court there will be no proceedings. That provision is valid when one is dealing with individual


cases, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is a bad rule to stick into a Bill to deal with a general class of cases which are not dealt with by the Bill.
The clause substitutes for something which ought to be the subject of a general expressed exception, such as was contained in the Bill when it originally came from another place, the discretion of the Attorney-General which ought to be exercised not generally but in relation only to particular cases, as it always has been.
It may be said that those who want to indulge in research can go to the Attorney-General in advance and ask him to undertake that he will not enable proceedings to be taken against them if they are guilty of contempt of court. But no Attorney-General could give such an undertaking on his own account or on his successor's account. That will not do.
Therefore, we are either introducing a liability on the Attorney-General which he ought not to bear or we are saying that the sanctity of the jury is so great that not even legitimate research ought to be allowed in any circumstances. I should be interested to hear any hon. Member say that that is his view. If it is, he can legitimately support the Lords amendment. If it is not his view, he cannot legitimately support the amendment, because that is precisely what the amendment does.
My amendments would preserve the possibility of legitimate research. They largely go back to the clause as it first came from another place, but they add the safeguard that it should be a good defence that there is intended to be no publication of names or anything that could disclose particular cases only when that intention is expressed between the juror and the person who solicits a disclosure or it is clearly understood by them otherwise than by being expressed.
That is as valid a safeguard as one can achieve. It means that if a researcher wishes to take advantage of the safeguard he has to make it clear to the juror whom he questions that, in any publication that follows the event, the case and the juror will not be identified; and that must be clearly understood by the juror.
If that is not made clear and understood, the defence will not apply and it will be a contempt of court. One could not have a better safeguard than that for the jury system or for the processes of research that my amendments are intended to accomplish. I hope that the House will not say that, because we are near the recess and want the Bill to go through, we shall let the Lords have their way and say nothing more about it. We may think that what the Lords have done is not sensible but that it is better to let it go through and say nothing more about it in the bare, almost unconstitutional form in which it has reached us, that it is better to let it go through, do nothing about it and forget about it. I hope that the House will not take that view but will throw out the amendments.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have considerable sympathy with what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin).

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It was far too long.

Mr. Hogg: I shall ignore that comment. I have carefully listened to the reasons advanced by the Attorney-General for accepting the amendments and I understand

the pragmatic considerations that lie behind those reasons. Because I understand those considerations, I do not intend to frustrate my right hon. and learned Friend.
I take this opportunity to express my views on the Lords amendments, because they are illiberal and unnecessary and will cause many problems in the criminal law. They are to be criticised because they display, on the part of those who advocate the need for the amendments, a failure to understand the law. If those who recommended the amendments to the House had fully understood the nature of the law, they might have appreciated that there was no compelling need for the amendments.
First, we must understand what the amendments do. Effectively, they do two things. They render contemptuous, unlawful and potentially criminal any disclosure of any transactions of any jury man. They go further than that—this is what the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) mentioned—and render contemptuous, unlawful and potentially criminal any approach to any member of a jury.
We have created a new class of absolute fairness. We must be clear in our minds what that means. I appreciate that prosecutions cannot be commenced without the consent of the Attorney-General for the time being. Nevertheless, the effect of the Lords amendments, if they are preserved, will be to render criminal the casual observation of a juror to his wife or to his neighbour. The hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) shakes his head. He is wrong. It is true that a prosecution can be commenced only with the consent of the Attorney-General, but that deals only with prosecutions. Disclosure of the kind to which I have referred is contemptuous, and thus criminal. I do not like to see someone's liberty or his vulnerability to prosecution dependent upon the executive action of any Minister, however respectable, and I class the Attorney-General in that category.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the old legal maxim, de minimis non curat lex—the law does not take account of small matters. He is equally aware that when jurors talk to their children or families there is no possibility of a prosecution being brought against them.

Mr. Hogg: Of course I am aware of the maxim. I remind the hon. and learned Member that it refers to civil law, not criminal law. The House is being asked to create a new class of criminal offence. I am not comforted by listening to the hon. and learned Member, because he is saying "We are creating a criminal offence, but because it is a trifling criminal offence there will be no prosecution". That is not a good reason for creating a criminal offence, and I am against it.
I start from the first proposition. The classes of amendment are undesirable, illiberal and draconian. That brings me to the second proposition. I realise that I am repeating what was said in another place. I see that the Attorney-General has a sardonic grin on his face. However, we must ask what is the justification for the amendments. If there is no compelling justification for them, we would do well to reject them.
I suggest that there is no compelling justification for what is proposed. We should try to determine the genesis of the change in the law. What caused the Government to bring about a change in the law? What caused the amendments? The former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich, touched on an


important point. He drew attention to the fact that when the Bill originated in the other place it dealt only with the publication of material. It contemplated the publication of material in printed matter, or on the radio or television.
In 1980 the New Statesman case changed the law in one small regard. Prior to that case it was thought that any disclosure whatsoever of anything that passed in the jury room amounted to contempt. There was a disclosure in the New Statesman of what passed in the jury room in connection with the Thorpe trial. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General brought proceedings for contempt.
The Divisional Court held that the fact that there is disclosure of what passes in the jury room is not necessarily a contempt. It might be a contempt, because the Divisional Court has taken care to preserve the existing common law. The court said, in terms, that any disclosure that intimidated jurors or might prejudice a case, constituted a contempt punishable at common law. The only change brought about by the New Statesman case was to take away the belief that all publication constitutes a contempt, whether or not it tends to prejudice proceedings. It was to plug that loophole that the Government introduced the change in the law. It was a very small change. The old common law situation exists, as it always has.
It is inappropriate for the other place to introduce an amendment which is profoundly illiberal and wholly draconian in order to meet a tiny and minuscule change in the law. I believe that this is an illiberal measure. I believe that it is a largely unenforceable measure. I am sure that it is a draconian measure. It is wholly unjustified by any consideration which should commend itself to the House. I regret the introduction of the amendments.

11 pm

Mr. Christopher Price: I start by declaring an interest and a lack of one. I am not a lawyer, and I suspect that, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and one or two other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), I am almost alone in that category in the Chamber at the moment. Perhaps I should declare a further interest, in that I am an occasional contributor to the New Statesman, since the amendment revolves around the New Statesman case. However, perhaps that should be categorised as a deminimis interest, in that the New Statesman does not exactly pay princely sums for anything that one contributes to it.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) was absolutely right when he said that the fact that we are considering these Lords amendments at all amounts to an abuse of the proceedings of the other place. I agree that what happened was quite in order, but it is absurd, if the parliamentary system between the two Houses is to proceed in a coherent way, that the Lords should introduce a Bill on Second Reading, go through long Committee and Report stages and say nothing at all on this issue, send the Bill to the Commons where we debate the matter in Committee, when my own Front Bench—with which I did not agree on that occasion—had things to say, as did the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), and then we had our Report stage. In response to the debate in Committee, the Attorney-General put down a tiny amendment which many

people thought added nothing to the meaning of the clause. The Lords then seized on that amendment in an attempt completely to alter the nature of the clause.
We therefore find ourselves at this late hour, because the Government have not brought forward an amendment, making absolute fools of ourselves by leaving on the statute book a law which the Attorney-General himself admits that he has no wish to see on the statute book. When this sort of thing happens, it is a complete abuse of our procedures. In my opinion, the Attorney-General had a duty to try a little harder to table an amendment.
It is a scandal for the Attorney-General to announce that, although he does not like the amendment, he will accept it simply because that is what he has been told to do by the Whips. That is what it amounts to: there is not enough time, and the Government are worried about their timetable. So he is happy, as Attorney-General, as pater patriae—as father of his country, as guardian of the laws of his country—to allow a law to go on the statute book which he thinks is nonsense, which he told the Committee was nonsense, and which he told us on Report was nonsense, simply because the Government are running into time problems at the end of July because of Royal weddings and other matters. It is intolerable that the House of Commons should be treated in this way.

The Attorney-General: First, that is not the main or the only reason why I have advised the House to accept the amendment. Secondly, adopting the most neutral stance that I can, although the hon. Gentleman says that nothing was said in the other place about the clause, I must tell him that amendments were moved by Lord Hutchinson on 20 January, on the second day of the Committee stage, exactly on this point.

Mr. Price: I stand corrected on that point. I shall come to Lord Hutchinson, whom I think we all respect, in a moment. It is true that, from that Dispatch Box, the Attorney-General gave as one reason—I do not know what weight he attached to it, compared with his other reasons—that time was short, so we might as well accept the amendment.
That is a disgraceful argument to use. We legislate here to try to get the law right. To say that we should accept an amendment because time is short is not the right way to proceed.
I have great sympathy with the Attorney-General. I have reason to be grateful to him, because he accepted some of my amendments. It is tough to be an Attorney-General in the House. One is constantly introducing legislation over which one has no control; because the Lord Chancellor controls legislation. I well remember that in 1968 Lord Elwyn-Jones argued passionately from the Dispatch Box that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London should not be disqualified from being magistrates simply because of their office. Following a little campaign in the correspondence column of The Times, when the Bill returned to the House for Lords amendments he argued passionately in reverse. He had been sold out by his Lord Chancellor.
The Attorney-General hats a duty to the House, notwithstanding anything that happens in another place, to stick by his arguments.

The Attorney-General: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, because I advanced certain arguments before the


debate in another place, I must stick to them willy nilly and be inflexible, whatever is said by the Law Lords and others?

Mr. Price: I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be inflexible. I would have preferred him to have introduced what has been described in the debate as a half-way house amendment. It is true that the Law Lords and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington—for whom I have much more respect than I have for the Law Lords—argued strongly in one direction. But it was a tiny constituency arguing in another place. The House must not pass legislation simply on the basis of what the lawyers say. Other opinions must be heard.
My objection to the Bill, and especially to this clause, is that decisions are arrived at simply on the basis of what the professionals—the judges, barristers and one or two solicitors—say, without the other constituencies involved, one of which is publishing, being properly heard. That has happened time and time again over the years when there has been legislation on such matters. It is about time that it stopped.
The position that we have reached on the clause shows the difficulties. It must be admitted that the debate has gone clean across party lines. The lawyers are arguing with each other. The Opposition Front Bench is suggesting that our former Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich, has less experience before juries than others. If we had a totting-up procedure between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) and my right hon. and learned Friend, I have no idea who would have appeared longer before juries.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Some of us learn from a little experience while others do not learn from a lot.

Me. Price: I do not wish to intervene in the squabble between my Front and Back Benches. Although I respect the view of my Front Bench, I profoundly disagree with it. In deciding to support so draconian an amendment it is making a great mistake.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman know who Draco was?

Mr. Price: He was an Athenian lawyer, and not a good one. A sedentary intervention I made earlier in the debate had some force. I wish to make it again standing on my feet. It is that lawyers and barristers have tremendous experience of jurors by appearing before them and talking at them, as it were, and no experience of being jurors and sitting on juries, unless they happen to have qualified rather late for their profession. They have little experience of talking to jurors. It is a great mistake if we legislate on the advice that is given to us by lawyers on what is proper to be the law in this area.
Many speeches have been made throughout the debate on the sanctity of the jury system. The fact that some hon. Members happen to believe in juries more than others, which leads them to vote for or against the amendment, is an absurd basis on which to conduct the debate. I happen to believe that the jury system is an excellent one. It has defended civil liberties in times of trouble in Britain, especially in the nineteenth century, better than any other

part of our constitution and it should be preserved. It does not follow from that that one must necessarily put an absolute prohibition on jurors.
In believing and trusting in the jury system I am showing far greater faith in saying that the common law should continue to apply than those who in this place and another place are introducing amendments and seeking to place a massive element of statute law into the system to replace a somewhat confused judgment of Lord Widgery in the Divisional Court in the New Statesman case. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was right in his description of what Lord Widgery did in that case. It was a narrow issue.
I suspect that after all this fuss the Attorney-General must be rueing the day that he brought the prosecution against the New Statesman. If he had not brought it, we would not be in this position. The only effect of the New Statesman article was to strengthen people's belief in juries. The article made it clear that a particular jury would have nothing to do with the evidence of a former Member of this place, Peter Bessell, because it knew of the arrangements that he had made with the Sunday Telegraph about the possible publication of his memoirs.
The Attorney-General brought a test case and Lord Widgery gave his judgment. The Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor placed the provision that we are debating in the Bill, and the result is a frightful muddle. We are creating a new criminal law and relying on the Attorney-General not to bring prosecutions when it would seem awkward to do so. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) that that is not the sort of area in which we should give discretion to the Attorney-General.
Shortly before the sad fall of the previous Labour Government my right hon. and learned Friend was trying to introduce a consent to prosecution Bill which was never enacted. It would have reduced substantially the area of the Attorney-General's discretion. I opposed it for certain reasons. I did so successfully because the general election intervened. I recognise that he introduced the Bill because of bitter experience over the years that Attorneys-General were being asked to use their discretion far too much in the law. What we are doing here is introducing a whole new area and asking the Attorney-General not to bring prosecutions in particular cases.
11.15 pm
All the evidence is that those people who have said something in general about their experience on juries have enormously strengthened the general belief in juries. In an intervention I mentioned Graham Greene, Simon Hoggart, Alan Coren and Katherine Whitehorn, to name but four, but it is worth mentioning the experience of the editor of the New Statesman. In a leading article on 10 July he said:
The editor of this paper served last year on a jury panel. It did not provide him with any hot exclusives, though it re-inforced his belief in the jury system. There is one disclosure he would like to make before Lord Hutchinson sends him to the Tower.
M Most of the jurors thought the Bar's performance was mediocre to appalling, and that of the judges not always superior. Any substantial inquiry into the views and attitudes of the British juror would leave the legal profession with plenty of house-cleaning to do—and therefore, with less time to meddle in affairs of which it is wholly ignorant.
I am not accusing the lawyers in the House of wanting to gag jurors because that would expose their incompetence, but others are, and, if jurors have something to say about judges, they should say it.
All hon. Members will remember the recent case in which the retired Judge King-Hamilton made some disgraceful remarks about the jury in front of it after it had given its verdict. The foreman of the jury thought it right and proper after the case to write to The Guardian simply to defend the jury against that attack by the judge. That is the sort of thing that my own Front Bench and the Attorney-General want to make illegal and impossible.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member has done his best to increase the circulation of the New Statesman by quoting Mr. Bruce Page. He must know that that is totally false. Of course, any comment by a juror about an attack on the jury by the judge has nothing to do with its deliberations in the jury room. The jurors can safely write to The Guardian, Mr. Bruce Page or anyone else and neither I nor Lord Hutchinson will prosecute them. They will have committed no offence.

Mr. Price: For that relief I thank the Attorney-General. However, I hope that he is right. It may be that the foreman of the jury in such a case, when attacked by the judge, must, if he is going to defend himself, adduce in evidence the way in which the jury deliberated. The letter to The Guardian would have been a criminal offence if the Bill were passed. It might not have been subject to prosecution by the Attorney-General, because I am sure that he would use his discretion sensibly. However, it is absolutely without doubt that, if the clause goes on the statute book, a future foreman of the jury will be enormously inhibited from defending himself and his jury after such an attack, as compared with the situation if the clause were not on the statute book. Once again, I suspect that the clause could be prejudicial to jurors who want to say good things about juries and want to defend themselves when under attack.
The other class of people whom the Attorney-General mentioned in Committee and on Report is what I call the journalist or author juror. To a large number of people, service on a jury is the most exciting thing that ever happens in their lives. Some of them happen to be professional writers and journalists. Through the ages, they have written about their experience on juries and the jury system has received nothing but benefit from those accounts.
Again, the Labour Front Bench, Conservative Members and the Attorney-General want to stop that flow of accounts by individuals of what happens on juries. That is why I tabled the first of my amendments. I am with the rest of the House about research. I do not want a lot of research into juries. Therefore, I am happy to ban the soliciting of juries' views. However, we are talking about taking away the civil rights of an individual to speak about what he regards the most significant event in his life. That is an outrageous new criminal offence for the House to create.
What will happen if, as seems likely, this Lords amendment goes through in its present form? It will affect newspapers such as the New Statesman that like to test the law, just as they did over juries. They were quite right about the law, because Lord Widgery found them not guilty—

Sir John Biggs-Davison: As one layman to another, is the hon. Gentleman saying that because someone finds something terribly exciting, he should be absolved from the principles of confidentiality?

Mr. Price: I am not saying that the mere excitement should absolve someone from confidentiality or a criminal offence. I am saying that it is stupid of the House to create a criminal offence out of disclosing a particular experience when an enormous amount of good can flow from such a disclosure. In fact, such disclosure in the past has done nothing but benefit the jury system.

The Attorney-General: I thank the hon. Gentleman for yet again giving way. Lords amendment No. 2 makes it an offence
to obtain, disclose, or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced, or votes cast by menbers of a jury in the course of their deliberations
That does not seem to exclude a journalist from saying afterwards that he did not think very much of counsel for the Crown or counsel for the defence; or that the judge was a bit dozy and did not seem to know the law; or that the usher was incompetent; or that the lunch was filthy; or that he had to wait for days before he was allowed to try a case. None of those intersting things, which I think the bar, pupils, solicitors and everyone else could gain by, would be prevented by that amendment, but perhaps I am wrong.

Mr. Price: Of course the Attorney-General is riot wrong and could not possibly be wrong on that. His intervention was extremely useful. Jurors who wish to know where they stand will now be able to get a little help by reading his remarks in Hansard.
The truth is that if a juror wants to say something about a case, he will not want to talk only about the judge being asleep and all the other things that the Attorney-General mentioned. He will want to say something about the general tone of the deliberations, about how a fat woman said one thing and a thin man said something else and they all came to a conclusion in some other way. According to the letter of the amendment, that will now become a criminal offence when it never was in the past. To that extent, those who wish to strengthen the jury system will be inhibited from doing so again.
As I have said, the danger of passing a tough, draconian law like this, providing for the Attorney-General's consent to try to prevent it from being used frivolously, is that journals such as the New Statesman which wish to sail close to the wind and to test the law will test it over and over again and push the Attorney-General's consent as far as it will go.
We have talked about the finality of the jury's verdict. I am very keen on that. But if the amendment is accepted there will be no finality of the statute law on this matter. Because of the shadow of the Attorney-General's consent, people will not know how far they can go, what the law is or what the situation is until Parliament gets down to drafting the kind of provision that the Attorney-General should have brought forward in an amendment laying down clearly what we mean in this whole area. Otherwise, I am convinced that it would have been far better to withdraw the clause entirely and go right back to the common law position with Lord Widgery's judgment, for better or worse, alongside it. That would have been a far better position than the absurd situation into which the House has now got itself.
I therefore hope that when we come to decide these matters the House will not simply allow the amendments to go through but that we shall test the feeling of the House on this issue.

Mr. Mellor: I wish to associate myself with the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and also those of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). The House is indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said about the passage of this legislation and the unhappy chance that has led us into the present position. The House should also be grateful to my hon. Friend for the vigorous way in which he analysed the legal position prior to the passage of the Bill.
I associate myself also with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has said in the past about the matters contained in the Lords amendments, and also the rightly robust way in which the arguments in favour of the amendments were dealt with in the other place by the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps I should say at once, for the avoidance of doubt, that I understand the pressure under which the Attorney-General finds himself, and I take the same view of today's proceedings as does my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham. Nevertheless, I still believe that it would be wrong to allow this measure to be passed without making some protest about the quality of the thinking behind it.
Apparently, the first thing that those of us who dare to question what the Lords propose must do is to say that we believe in the jury system. It should be unnecessary to have to make that point, but in so far as it is necessary I make it with vigour. I think that much of the same audience as is here tonight heard me, I hope with proper robustness, denounce a proposal then contained in, but now happily removed from, the Supreme Court Bill to restrict the entitlement of juries to hear civil cases if those cases might be of some length. Had I been here a few years before that, I should have wanted to denounce in the most robust terms the proposal in one commission's report that the right to jury trial for certain theft offences should be removed. I hope that my credentials as a defender of the jury system are established and that I can now come to the central point in this matter.
11.30 pm
The jury system in this country has survived unscathed despite attempts by various criminals to nobble jurors—that is because there are adequate ways of dealing with nobblers of jurors—by writers or people who want to make a wider public aware of their experiences on juries and by academics who want to undertake research into what goes on in the jury room. I shall come to the question whether there should be such research.
We find ourselves in this position tonight because of the Attorney-General's reasonable desire to correct what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham properly called a small change in the law effected by the Divisional Court last year. That opened the floodgates, and a wave of what I can only call near hysteria gripped the other place, because their lordships allowed themselves to be swayed by a speech by Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, which appeared to offer the prospect of jurors, on emerging from their box in the court to the hall outside, being pestered by a crowd of academics, social scientists, friends and enemies of parties, lawyers and journalists to know what went on.
I appear before juries, and I know a few of the Crown courts. Therefore, I know enough to know that that does

not go on. It never has gone on, and it would not go on if the Bill as originally drafted had gone forward without the intervention by Lord Hutchinson.
The question has been posed whether the fact that someone has addressed juries is a good basis for deciding whether he has a contribution to make to the debate. I do not know whether a persuasive argument against the Archbishop of Canterbury and the quality of his arguments on Heaven would be that he had not been there. But if that is a valid point to make, perhaps Lord Hutchinson has addressed a few too many juries and treated the House of Lords to a speech more suited to the Old Bailey and to the kind of analysis of the situation that the Court of Appeal might require than to the issues of individual liberty with which we are dealing today.
We are concerned with the liberty not of someone to sit freely on a jury, but of some other subject, equally worthy of our respect and consideration, who may wish to carry out valid research into the way that juries work or of someone who may wish to publish his reflections on the jury system.
I come to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) about whether such research is necessary. I preface this by saying that no one in the House holds my hon. and learned Friend in more respect and affection than I do. But I would say that the answer to that question is that there is a need for such research. I should like to give some examples why that should be so.
Anyone who is interested in the administration of justice cannot fail to be concerned at the fact that 49 per cent. of those who plead not guilty to trial on indictment in Crown courts are acquitted. Thousands of our fellow citizens are either being wrongly acquitted of crimes for which they should be convicted or are being subjected to the humiliation of a jury trial for offences which, manifestly, they did not commit. Plainly, that is a source for some concern. Is it the quality of the evidence put before the jury or the quality of the deliberations in the jury room? One does not know. I do not think that any hon. Member, whatever views he may have on this issue, can say other than that there is a problem here.
Many people believe that the jury system should be based on trial by 12 randomly selected fellow citizens. But there is concern, in key trials with many defendants, about the distortion of the jury panel by objections without cause, which can exhaust a jury panel and transform a jury from being a typical to an untypical selection of the public. What effect does that have on the administration of justice? Is that not a fit matter for academics or anyone else concerned about the quality of our justice to look into?
Then there is the question of the ability of a jury selected on the present basis to come to grips with a sophisticated fraud. The present situation is most unhappy, with clever frauds—which have often failed to attract the attention of financial experts for many months, if not years, in a company—being brought before people whose connection with financial matters is, to say the least, limited, if not negligible. The question can legitimately be posed by those of us who admire the jury system: is there not a case, in instances such as that, for special juries?
There are legitimate and proper areas for research when the quality of a jury's ability to come to grips with these cases can properly be laid before the public, provided that individual cases cannot be identified. Plainly, it would be wrong to say that old X, the crooked financier, should


have been convicted, but he was not, and that if only the jury had had a bit more intelligence it would have convicted him. But it is perfectly proper for an investigation to go forward into the manner in which a jury reaches its conclusions in cases of this kind, in order to decide whether certain categories of cases should be subject to a different basis for trial.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Member is making such a persuasive case that I hesitate to add to what he says. Will he also accept that there is a good case for looking, for example, at the success or failure of the reduction of the age limit for jurors, made only recently, from 21 to 18, and matters of that kind?

Mr. Mellor: Of course. I do not want to labour the point, but I do not think there are many people here who could have read the observations of Lord Hutchinson at the start of all this without feeling that it was little better than a taproom assault upon academics in general. He talked dismissively about professors. It was not persuasive. It was the kind of argument that was resenting the fact that any academic or anyone else should see fit to challenge something that we lawyers apparently accept as being without fault. His suggestion, in a particular snide passage in his speech, that professors would not want to take the trouble to investigate the jury unless they wanted to pick holes in it, is not worth a moment's serious consideration.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the other criticism to be made of Lord Hutchinson is that he failed to understand the existing common law position, and failed to appreciate that the New Statesman case had changed the common law position in only one tiny respect?

Mr. Mellor: I have already endorsed what my hon. Friend said on that point, and I saw no evidence that Lord Hutchinson appreciated the point. Indeed, he seemed to be suggesting that what the Government proposed was actually the law and had had the effects to which I have referred. Those who circulate around the Crown courts will know that to be absolute nonsense.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman care to deal not simply with the views and the speech of Lord Hutchinson, but with the speech of Lord Edmund-Davies, which could hardly be described as hysterical or of a taproom variety, and with that of the Lord Chief Justice? Is not the point about research, which was touched on when we last met in the House on this matter, the one made by the learned Attorney-General, that when one looks at the views expressed by two of the jurors interviewed, they often seem to be: talking about two different cases? If one went through the whole of the jury one by one, there would be the danger of having a completely inconsistent and garbled account, and, indeed, perhaps 12 different versions.

Mr. Mellor: I have already said that I accept that the Attorney-General is entitled to take the view that he has, and that one of the things that persuaded him was that there were a number of people of distinction who agreed with it. Since he has already been referred to, I am entitled to say that the noble Lord who started this matter was not at his most persuasive on that occasion. The fact that someone else was more persuasive on another occasion does not necessarily devalue my point. I agree with the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for

Dulwich and my Friend the Member for Grantham, Unless the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) wishes me to go over those points, which have been adequately dealt with, I shall move on.
Too much reliance is being placed on the Attorney-General's intervention. It is worrying that the Attorney-General is expected, in effect, to issue a blanket permission to certain categories of people and to say "Although the Bill says that nothing should be said about what goes on in a jury room, that does not apply to you, old chap. Do not worry, it doesn't apply to you or anyone like you. We are only out to catch old 'X'." That is not the way in which to deal with the law. Indeed, I am not sure that the Attorney-General is the only person who will determine whether certain matters—which most of us would be shocked to think could come before a court in the form of contempt—will come before a court.
I turn to clause 8(4). The clause has been subjected to many changes and I wish to ensure that I am reading the version that is before us. No doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong. It states:
Proceedings for a contempt of court under this section (other than Scottish proceedings) shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General or on the motion of a court having jurisdiction to deal with it.
Am I right to say that there is an "or", which suggests that it is not only the Attorney-General who can decide, but any court that has jurisdiction to deal with the matter? One assumes that that includes any Crown court that has heard the jury trial in which it is suggested that a breach has occurred. It will have the right to summon the miscreant before it on the basis of contempt. If that is so, we are opening the way for every circuit judge, deputy circuit judge and recorder in England and Wales to institute proceedings under, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said, this draconian and illiberal measure.
I admire and respect those with whom I have worked in my professional life. However, I shall not further reduce the credibility of lawyers in the House by suggesting that there is not one in that wide category of those who sit, day after day, administering justice, who is incapable—in a moment's rush of blood to the head—of making a foolish decision. Anyone who frequents the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) will know only too well that mistakes—sometimes gross and glaring ones—are made day after day and week after week. That is why the Court of Appeal exists and is so busy.
It needs only one minor judicial functionary to have a rush of blood to the head about one article for unworthy proceedings for contempt to be instituted. We are all anxious lest the law should be brought into disrepute. Something done from the best: of motives may suddenly be seen to be an awful albatross around the neck of justice and to be something that unduly inhibits the liberty of the subject in a way that we cannot be proud of.

Mr. Cryer: With good grace, the Attorney-General has capitulated. I do not wish to under-value the adept way in which he slid out from his previously announced position. He has done so either as a result of pressure from the other place—and particularly from the Law Lords—or as a result of pressure from the legislative committee of the Cabinet. That body may have said that time and pressure would prevent the Government from enacting other measures if any difficulties arose in what is, to that body, a minor piece of legislation, compared with the


Government's other political measures. The Attorney-General, with all these pressures, has capitulated, albeit with good grace.
11.45 pm
This also demonstrates the powerful influence of lawyers in the two Chambers. It is not a very edifying sight. If one-sixth of the membership of this House consisted of part-time trade union officials and if the Lords also happened to be populated by a large number of trade union officials, I wonder whether the Attorney-General would have felt that their opinion should be accepted or whether he would have held out for his own. I suspect that it would have been the latter.
It is not a good thing that Parliament should be over-representative of any section of the population, let alone a tiny proportion of the population such as lawyers. It does the House no good to demonstrate and to admit that the influence of the legal profession has brought about this regrettable change in the legislation. I should like to give the comments of one of the people involved. He is not a lawyer. He is a journalist—one of the people who put into print the comments of a juror, which gave rise to this whole episode. I refer to the editor of the New Statesman. Hon. Members may disagree with his view, an outside view, of this place. I believe, however, that it will command a fair share of consent outside. The position of lawyers is not regarded with esteem by the public at large. When lawyers are seen to exert excessive influence in this place, it moves down a peg.
The editor of the New Statesman said on 10 July that judges and lawyers
are capable of spouting as much foam-flecked rubbish as anyone else when transported to another environment; for instance, the Palace of Westminster, within which they are merely a large, raucous and numerically dominant occupational pressure group. Putting it bluntly the lawyers, having been trounced on their own ground by the result in the New Statesman case, decided to get together in Parliament and rejig the law, by statute, in a manner more to their taste—and damn any nonsense about logic or coherence. Such a task is eased by the fact that Britain has no constitution to discipline its legislature. Unable to find the slightest evidence of harm done by widespread discussion of jury deliberations in the past they fell back on mysticism or what might also be called baloney.
He also refers to the comment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) on the jury as
a strange potion, an admixture that cannot be found in any other meeting of any other group in the world".
That widespread and sweeping condemnation is unfair to the degree that all widespread condemnations are unfair. This debate has shown that there are lawyers who are concerned and who have expressed that concern and whose remarks I, as a non-lawyer, have appreciated. Nevertheless, that passage is worth quoting as a view on what has happened in the re-shaping of this Bill by the Lords amendment.
I spoke in the last debate in support of the Attorney-General. If all the views expressed about them on that occasion are true, then juries and jurors are sturdy enough and robust enough to withstand any of the modest and highly restrictive approaches that the original legislation laid down. There was to be no identification of jurors and no identification of trial, it should be remembered. Surely, in those circumstances and with the robust record of juries

going back over hundreds of years, some unidentified comment should have been permissible under the Bill, unamended, without wrecking the whole jury system.
Juries are an important part of our legal system. I defend the jury system, as I defended it when it became clear that the Crown was taking selective views of juries, unknown to the defence in some cases. I held that juries must be retained and developed, but there have been changes, such as majority decisions in jury trials. The question of lowering the age limit for jurors has also been mentioned. Unless we have the views of jurors about what is happening, we shall not be able to take as informed a decision as we might.
One or two speeches by lawyer Members have brought out the comatose, contented view that, because they are lawyers, they know everything about how the law works and that any suggestion to the contrary is a slur on their competence and prestige. That is the impression given by some comments about research.
Research can be important and relevant, and we need it if lay people as well as lawyers are to keep abreast of the development, nature and process of juries to make sure that they remain the bulwark of liberty that we believe them to be.
No doubt the forces of the Government will be marshalled and, having gone up the hill on behalf of the Government when the Bill was last before us, they will be turned round and sent down the hill to vote in exactly the opposite way. That is how the Government machine sometimes works—without too much care for the details of the print. It will be interesting to see whether the views expressed in the debate are backed by votes in the Lobbies. The amendment is illiberal and I shall certainly oppose it.

Mr. Best: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), I shall not presume to lecture hon. Members on what the law is. We are not discussing the validity of the jury system, and it would be wrong to do so. In any case, the validity of the system is not in doubt. No hon. Member has cast any doubt on it.
It is important to recall that the Bill as originally drafted was supported by another place, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and by the Government. It cannot have been mere whim that clause 8 was inserted. One likes to think that it was done with due consideration, and one has to consider the arguments carefully before accepting the reversal of the original position.
My right hon. and learned Friend suggested that clause 8 is almost an immaterial part of the Bill. He referred to it as a bastard in the Bill, but some illegitimate children can be important people and we should not dismiss clause 8 because it is regarded as a bastard. It was enshrined in the Bill as drafted and we must consider carefully whether it should be castrated.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Never do that to a bastard—it is very unfair.

Mr. Best: What has emerged from the debate is a fanatical belief in the jury system which does not admit any questioning of it. I see the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) nodding in affirmation. If hon. Members place their hands on their hearts, that is the stance that they take. It is a stance with which I cannot agree.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) quoted Northern Ireland to me. We all accept the abuse there. The abuse that has led to the establishment of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland is the intimidation of jurors, for which neither the House nor anyone has yet found the answer so that we can bring back the jury system in Northern Ireland. That abuse is a far greater threat to the jury system than clause 8 would ever be.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who is listened to with the greatest respect, said that if juries had to give reasons for their verdicts that would mean the collapse of the jury system. I am happy to agree with him, and I am sure that all hon. and learned Gentlemen agree with him. But that is not what clause 8 provides. It admits that juries may be questioned afterwards, if they so wish—they do not have to answer the questions—about the nature of the deliberations. It does not mean that the foreman has to stand in court and formally give reasons for a verdict. That would be wrong. Under Clause 8, as originally drafted, jurors would not be obliged to answer questions of those seeking to elicit information, for whatever reason, about the nature of the deliberations in the jury room.
If the questioning of jurors is so intolerable to right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite—it would appear that it is—surely we are entitled to ask whether it is intolerable to say to a defendant after he has been cautioned that he can be further questioned by a police officer because, mutatis mutandis, the situation is the same. If it is not intolerable for an arrested man, once he has been cautioned, to be further questioned by a police officer, knowing that he has the right not to reply to those questions if he so wishes, surely that can also be admitted to the question of considering the jury system.
I believe wholeheartedly in the sacrosanctity of the jury system, but that does not mean that it should not be questioned. We live in questioning times, and I welcome them Perhaps they will be referred to in days to come as the new age of reason. I hope so.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I doubt it.

Mr. Best: I may be too optimistic at this late hour.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is.

Mr. Best: We should ask ourselves whether, in a time of questioning, it is right that silence should be the answer. I do not think that silence is the best answer. What is wrong with trying to find our whether our jury system deserves the great respect that all of us have for it? Surely it will enhance that respect if what hon. and learned Gentlemen say about it is true and that it is based on the facts.

Mr. John Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman surprised to know what I learnt only today that on the day of the New Statesman case decision a number of courts not more than 60 miles from here, which are not far from a large complex of ITV studios, had cameramen at the door of the court at the end of that day's proceedings, ready and anxious to interview the jurors on that day. Fortunately, the authorities of the court took a robust view about the rights of cameramen and jurors.

12 midnight

Mr. Best: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes that point about one case. Is he really saying that

the law, as it existed then, obliged any juror to divulge to television cameras what had been going on during deliberations?

Mr. Peter Archer (Walley, West): On a number of occasions the hon. Member has said that a jury man would not be "obliged" to answer questions. Does he not appreciate that our concern is not what a jury man will be obliged to divulge, but what other jury men might think of what the jury man who is asked might divulge about what they say?

Mr. Best: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that in clause 8, as originally drafted, there is the protection that the individual proceedings, defendant and case will not be identified. That is the safeguard. The fundamental question is whether we should have the right to question the jury system to ascertain whether it is as efficacious as we believe it to be. I think that it is right that we should have the ability to question.
If that is so—and I accept that I do not carry all hon. Members with me—we must then ask whether that questioning should be from a position of ignorance or knowledge. Clause 8, as originally drafted, enables that questioning to be on the basis of knowledge rather than ignorance. If the clause does not remain part of the Bill, I suspect that the public will not have the ability to comprehend why we should take a stand so that one aspect of our judicial system should have particular protection, when we question all other aspects in the House and the courts, since it is from members of the general public that the jurors are selected.

Mr. Lawrence: I have already made one excellent speech today and I did not intend to push my luck a second time. However, it is invidious for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to be placed on the defensive at this late hour. We have heard speeches against him from both sides of the House. I rise because I was one of those who took exception to the stand that my right hon. and learned Friend was taking at one stage. It is only right that I should support him at this stage.
Not just myself but Lord Hutchinson, and the Lord Chief Justice and other distinguished Law Lords, supported by 76 Members of the Lords, support the amendment. Unless they are all blithering idiots there must have been some conviction in the arguments by the Law Lords. Lord Hutchinson was speaking for a large body of banisters in the criminal courts.
I have the feeling that some of us seem to know something that others do not. I hesitate to make the point, because the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is not in his place. He usually uses such occasions to be unfriendly to lawyers, although he was restrained this evening. It is commonly and widely thought that the House of Commons is full of lawyers, but it is not overpopulated with lawyers. There are about 20 practising lawyers in the House, out of a total body of 635. It is of no importance. that 20 or 30 years ago somebody who had never practised the law, who never pontificates on the law and who never takes part in anything particularly legal, once qualified as a lawyer and now says that the place is full of lawyers. If anything, it is full of lecturers and journalists. Lawyers are quite a small minority.

Mr. Christopher Price: The hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that there are 20 practising lawyers in


the House, but I suspect that there is a good sprinkling of retired lawyers on top of that. There is a very small number, probably less than 10, of practising members of the National Union of Journalists. The journalists are greatly outnumbered by lawyers.

Mr. Lawrence: Those who are members of the union are obviously a much smaller part of the whole. Many Members of Parliament are journalists in one form or another. In any case, there is a very large number of lecturers. However, I do not wish to be sidetracked on that matter.
I want to deal briefly with the matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Keighley, that lawyers in these matters tend to hog the debate and pretend that they know more about them than ordinary laymen. In talking about juries, it is particularly relevant to know the experience of jury practitioners. It was a little too facile for the hon. Member for Lewisham (Mr. Price) to say that lawyers do not sit on juries and probably do not question juries. The fact is that over a lengthy period at the Bar, and particularly of daily practice in front of juries, one gets to know quite a lot of what happens in the jury room. Jury men approach one from time to time and say that they are terrified. That is not an experience that ordinary laymen ever have. Unless they are in the court when the judge comes back and clears the court and conducts an inquiry into why a jury man is terrified and where he has been threatened or approached, ordinary laymen do not necessarily know about it, but the practising criminal lawyer does.
The sum total of the experience and the wisdom of the Criminal Bar Association, particularly as it is represented in the Central Criminal Court—which, when I started, had six courts, and now has about 26 courts—is that it is very dangerous to allow a clearly stated development in our law which appears to make it possible for people to approach jury men. That is not just because jury men may be apprehensive, frightened and worried about what another jury man may tell a journalist, if asked. It is also that some of us feel that research, even genuine research, will do nothing to strengthen the jury system.
I do not agree with my hon. and learned or unlearned Friends who have said that if we are so confident, trusting and admiring of the jury system we should be allowed to permit it a close scrutiny. I do not accept that. The jury system is a delicate flower. The sum total of inquiring into why members of a jury came to any particular decision is likely to lead to public dissatisfaction with the jury system. I have said that at every stage of our proceedings. I have been prepared to concede that it is to protect the jury from public analysis, as much as anything else, that I was in favour of the change that we have now introduced.
I believe that the jury system is not to be questioned, because such a process would undermine the system and put nothing better in its place. If we could devise a better system of trying ordinary people, one which would attract the support of ordinary people, the acceptance of the criminal who now accepts the jury's decision, however many spots and warts it may have, I should then be prepared to allow an analysis of what happens in jury rooms. But until such time as we can think of a better alternative than trial by judges or lay assessors who are qualified in some way or other, the jury system, with all

its faults—there are many faults which would, as sure as eggs are eggs, be discovered and stripped bare by constant research—is the best system that we have. It should endure. There should not be the slightest interference with it. I would not let a researcher go within 1,000 miles of any jury man, however bona fide and well-intentioned such a researcher might be.
I do not agree with my hon. Friends who say that there is great value in analysing and investigating the jury system. Hordes of investigators considering why juries acquit 49 or 50 per cent. of cases would not help the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) made a point that I have often made in the House about the failings of our criminal procedure to protect the innocent and convict the guilty. It would not help to research the minds and attitudes of the jury to see why it acquits. Any practitioner will say that it acquits because the police have not been believed. In our London criminal courts that has all too frequently been the position. If a police officer is cross-examined in a way that shows that he is not truthful about something, defence counsel will say that, if he is not being truthful about that matter, he may not be truthful about other things, and juries acquit. We did not need to research the jury system to discover that, any more than we needed to research it to discover that in many juries one dissenting voice was enough to bring an acquittal, which made it necessary to introduce majority verdicts. The researching of juries may sound attractive, but it would not lead to anything constructive. It might lead to something destructive and I have dealt with that argument.

Mr. Mellor: I take the point that my hon. and learned Friend is making with great candour. I know that many listening to him find it attractive. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. McConville published a book two years ago on perfectly legitimate research into juries, even if it was somewhat tendentious. The legal system survived that onslaught. If they brought out a second volume, and the proposed Act was enforced they could be prosecuted. Is that an acceptable position in a free society?

Mr. Lawrence: It is. As has been pointed out, until the New Statesman case everybody assumed that jury men were not to be approached and that questions were not to be asked. There is no great change there. I do not think that the book to which my hon. Friend alludes has made any great contribution to the understanding of the working of the jury system. If that habit caught on there would be a substantial undermining of the jury system as we know it.
Even though the hour is late, I thought it necessary to speak in support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I know that he has been placed in a difficult position. Those of us on the Conservative Benches who respect him should give him considerable credit for the way in which he has dealt with the matter. We should recognise that, whatever hon. Members—whether they practise at the Bar or otherwise—may say, there is overwhelming experience in support of the final stand being taken by my right hon. and learned Friend. It does not matter two jots how it comes about. If we have gone through the proper procedures of the two Houses of Parliament and improved the Bill in a way that is acceptable to those who understand and have experience of the workings of the jury system, we have done a great service to the country.

The Attorney-General: If by accepting that I might be wrong I am guilty of capitulation, so be it. That is what I have been accused of tonight. I prefer to believe that I am right to have regard to the views expressed in this House on Report and to the strong views expressed by experienced judges and others in another place.
It is interesting that we have heard speeches against the amendment that have included arguments that were never even whispered when a similar amendment was moved on Report. Those who spoke tonight were not here to give me support when I was almost the lone speaker seeking to oppose the amendments. However, those who expressed those arguments came out for this debate—I will not say that they came out of the woodwork—having never come out before.
I believe that I am right not to be inflexible. I do not find it so curious that the Government are capable of changing their mind. Usually the criticism is that the Government refuse to change their mind. I do not think that this is the time of night to deal with all the arguments that have been advanced. We must not fail to pay regard to what has been said both in this House and in another place. This is not a matter of the lawyers getting together. We cannot disregard the views expressed by so many, particularly the Law Lords, who try cases and who have had great practices at the Bar. The House should accept the amendments.

Question pat, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 71, Noes 2.

Division No. 287]
[12.20 am


AYES


Ancram, Michael
Beith, A. J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Berry, Hon Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Biggs-Davison, John





Blackburn, John
Mudd, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Murphy, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Myles, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Newton, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Normanton, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Cope, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Penhaligon, David


Elliott, Sir William
Prior, Rt Hon James


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rhodes James, Robert


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Speller, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stevens, Martin


Graham, Ted
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Tebbit, Norman


Gummer, John Selwyn
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Haselhurst, Alan
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Thompson, Donald


Hawkins, Paul
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hawksley, Warren
Trippier, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Waddington, David


Lawrence, Ivan
Wakeham, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Wells, Bowen


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wheeler, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wickenden, Keith


MacGregor, John
Wolfson, Mark


Mather, Carol



Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mellor, David
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Mills, lain (Meriden)
and Mr. Robin Boscawen.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Michael
Mr. Bob Cryer and



Mr. Christopher Price.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Co-operative Development Agency

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the draft Co-operative Development Agency (Grants) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.
The purpose of the order, which is being made under section 4(1) of the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978, is to increase from £900,000 to £1,500,000 the aggregate of grants that may be made by the Secretary of State to the Co-operative Development Agency.
The House may find it helpful if I begin by explaining a little of the background to the agency and its work. Following the report of a working group drawn from the co-operative movement, the CDA was set up with all-party support by means of the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978 and came formally into being on 1 September of that year. The Act was drafted on the basis of the majority recommendations of the working group whose report concluded that a statutory body should be established to promote the co-operative sector, that the agency's members should be appointed by the Secretary of State for Industry and that the cost of establishing and running the agency for three years—estimated at £300,000 a year—should be borne by the Government.
The act empowers the Secretary of State to make grants to the agency up to a ceiling of £900,000. However, it was envisaged that there might be a need for further Government support after the initial three-year period, and there is a provision under section 4(1) of the Act for the limit of grants to the agency to be raised from £900,000 to £1,500,000 subject to the approval of this House. The agency's initial three-year term ends on 31 August, when the current funds will almost have been exhausted and the appointments of the present board expire.
The fact that the 1978 Act makes provision only for launching finance reflects the clearly expressed intention of the working group that the CDA should be dependent on Government grant only for the first years of its existence. The working group took the view that the agency should use every opportunity to raise revenue by charging for its services and should set itself the aim of eventual self-sufficiency.
That was also the view expressed by the then Government, the then Opposition and the Liberal Party when the Bill was before the House in 1978. However, the working group recognised that it would be unrealistic to suppose that any material amount would be earned in the very early years. That has certainly been borne out in the event.
I recognise that that will be disappointing to some of those hon. Members who spoke in the original debate, especially to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who said that he did not see why the agency should not finance itself from fees or contributions after the first three years.
In the last financial year, however, the agency's fee income was only £13,000. In fairness to the agency, I acknowledge that the general economic situation has made it difficult to build up income, whether from other organisations with which the agency collaborates or from the new smaller producer co-operatives which typically look to the agency for advice.
Another non-Government source of funding—the co-operative movement—was seriously considered by the working group. Since the CDA was set up at the instigation of the co-operative movement and for its benefit, it was argued—why should the movement not pay for it? That argument was rejected at the time because the cost would have fallen almost entirely on the consumer retail section. For that reason, the agency's credibility as the representative body of the movement as a whole could have been jeopardised, particularly since such emphasis was and still is being put on producer or industrial manufacturing co-operatives. However, the working group considered that when the agency had established its position, financing by the movement would no longer be such a sensitive issue. There is no immediate possibility of the movement taking over financial responsibility for the CDA, but this possibility remains for the future and I hope and expect the agency to take advantage of the breathing space that a further tranche of Government funding will allow it to pursue this possibility urgently together with any other possibilities that there may be of becoming financially independent of Government at an early date. I hope that the movement will be in a position to consider in due course a more positive contribution in that respect. The number of years which can now be involved—the three that have passed and the others that could be ahead—is quite long enough for a pump priming exercise to run.
The House will wish to know why the Government should have decided to seek authority to continue the financial provision for the CDA, even at the reduced annual rate that we now propose. The decision was taken after a critical review of the agency's performance to date and a careful assessment of its potential national contribution in generating businesses and jobs. We took into account also an independent evaluation of the agency by ICFC Consultants Limited and the CDA's own report on the progress that it had made.
The agency's role is to promote the principles and practice of co-operation generally and to be the representative body for the whole co-operative movement. With no fewer than 10 separate functions allotted to it under the Act, the agency has a considerable number of broadly defined and broad objectives. This wide remit has inevitably meant that in practice the agency has had to be to some extent selective and has had to learn from experience—and is still learning—where best to concentrate its efforts.
Admittedly, three years is a relatively short time for the agency to get over its teething troubles, establish its reputation and secure its financial future, although, frankly, I have heard criticisms, and I have some sympathy with them, to the effect that the CDA could have been quicker off the mark. The fact is that the first year was mainly spent in getting started—finding premises, recruiting staff and so forth—and it is only over the last year or so that the agency has been fully established and operational.
Over the past year, however, the agency can point to a sharp increase in its activities, both those that are responsive and those where it has taken the initiative. On average, more than two new industrial co-operatives are now being registered each week. Most of these seek the agency's advice either directly or from other agencies which in turn have received guidance from it. The rate of


inquiries received has doubled over the last year and three quarters of these have been from existing or proposed new businesses. In collaboration with the agency, an increasing number of local authorities are showing interest in promoting co-operatives. The agency has taken the initiative in developing new kinds of co-operative to cater for particular situations. The neighbourhood co-operative is designed to fill gaps in the provision of small-scale local services and so provide jobs mainly for young people. Ten businesses of this kind are being set up and 250 inquiries have so far been received.
A co-operative training and enterprise workshop is being considered which would be designed to train young people in a trade and as members of an industrial co-operative. The marketing co-operative enables small businesses to pool resources to market their products. The agency has also made some headway in promoting a greater awareness and understanding of the co-operative form of enterprise and its possibilities among lending institutions arid public authorities. It has also devised a new set of model rules as an alternative to those of the Industrial Common Ownership Movement.
Though not a comprehensive evaluation, since time and cost were limited, the report on the agency by ICFC Consultants Limited was generally favourable. The sample was too small for conclusive results, but the main findings were that the agency had been generally successful in supporting and encouraging co-operatives and in representing co-operative interests nationally, but less successful, at least until recently, in publicising co-operative possibilities. Despite some reservations about its performance, nearly 90 per cent. of those interviewed in the study sample—excluding members of co-operatives—felt there was a need for the agency.
While the recent evidence of an improving performance is encouraging, the Government have reached the conclusion that changes within the agency are necessary to improve its effectiveness and substantially to reduce its current level of expenditure.
I have already mentioned that the agency has to some extent had to be selective. It does not in practice attempt to give equal weight and attention to each of its numerous functions. Much of the agency's effort has been devoted to advising those who are concerned with setting up co-operatives, and particular emphasis has been placed on the encouragement of producer co-operatives in view of the weakness of this sector in the United Kingdom compared with several other European countries. We do not disagree with this selective approach. On the contrary, we would like the agency to go much further and with more speed in the same direction.
In particular, we want the agency to give top priority in future to those functions that are likely to make a direct contribution to the creation of new enterprises and jobs. In the economic situation that we face, it must be right to put the emphasis firmly on job creation and practical activity. We wish the agency also to concentrate on giving advice on matters that are peculiar to co-operatives, such as model rules. I suspect that much of the advice on straightforward business matters can be supplemented and in many cases provided by the Department of Industry's small firms service and the counsellors, who are practical business men, or, where appropriate, other business advisory agencies, a point to which I wish to return later.
The Government also see considerable scope for reshaping the agency into a more streamlined and effective

organisation, with a smaller board and fewer staff. A businesslike and hard-headed approach will be needed to succeed in the difficult task that I have described and at the same time to achieve the economies that the reduced rate of funding will impose. I do not wish in any way to decry co-operative ideals and principles, but commercial attitudes must be given due weight if there is to be a significant and lasting increase in co-operative businesses. In considering appointments to the new board, we shall place a premium on business experience.
This is the challenge and the opportunity that we are offering to a reconstituted CDA. I realise that it is not an easy prospectus, but I do not consider it unrealistic either. I have discussed it with the chairman of the CDA, Lord Oram, who accepts that it provides a feasible way forward that will enable the agency to continue with and concentrate on its key tasks. In fact, Lord Oram has made a considerable personal contribution to working out: a future strategy on the lines that I have described, and at his instigation the present board has already taken steps to pave the way for its introduction. I thank him and his board for all the work that they have done.
I suspect that some hon. Members will express their personal views about co-operatives. Therefore, as a Conservative, perhaps I may express why I wish the agency well in the task that we are asking it to carry out with, I hope, renewed vigour and a strong practical emphasis. I do not expect all hon. Members who have experience of and views on co-operatives to agree with everything that I say, but it is worth putting my view on record.
I have long been in favour of increased employee participation, including financial participation and wider capital ownership. In fact, I had the privilege of leading for the then Conservative Opposition on the 1978 Finance Bill when we were dealing with proposals for increased share ownership, which was a modest start on which the Government have been able to build.
I have also long been a supporter of small businesses and the private enterprise spirit which motivates them—often, and much observed now, by people who started life with little and who, by their efforts, skills and independence, have made a success of the businesses that they created. I am delighted when they do so and when they obtain the rewards that I believe are their due because, by their efforts, they have brought jobs and economic activity to their communities.
I welcome the recent growth in management buy-outs and the new strength that they can bring to what may in some cases—not all—have been a failing business or failing part of a much bigger business. Management buy-outs help to bring about the closer participation of employees in the success of a firm and a more vivid awareness of what is involved in achieving it by identifying customer needs and working hard and effectively to meet them.
I see co-operative enterprises as another strand, albeit with a different organisational structure, in that kind of thinking. It can bring economic benefits and real permanent jobs also by aligning the interests of those working in the enterprise with what is necessary to make it succeed.
For me, the justification is not the satisfying of some ideological ideal as such. It is that it is a business structure which in certain circumstances, like any other, can work and work well. But, like any other business, at the end of


the day it is customer satisfaction—and I make no apology for coming back to it—that enables the business to be viable, let alone to prosper. This means attention to proper business practices and to the wide range of skills that are required. That is why I placed some emphasis earlier on the importance of getting advice in a new co-operative setup to make sure that all the range of skills which may not be available to the members of the co-operative are brought to bear to make the business succeed. Sometimes the counsellors of my own Department's small firms service can play a helpful part, as well as others, with that business experience.
We do no prospective co-operative a service by letting its members believe that somehow this is a system which absolves them from proper industrial and business disciplines. They are as essential to success in co-operatives as to any other type of enterprise. It is because I believe that it can work, especially with the right advice and guidance from the beginning, that I am pleased to recommend this further lease of life to the agency tonight.
I must make clear the position on the future funding of the agency. In the light of the case I have outlined, the Government consider that the steps we are taking are justified. However, funding will be on a considerably reduced scale, in line with the agency's modified role and size. Although the approval of the House is being sought to raise the limit of grants for the agency by £600,000, funds will be made available to the agency at the rate of no more than £200,000 a year, and will be subject to review.
The decision that I am putting to the House for agreement tonight will, I believe, give the agency more time to prove its value—despite the fact that many hon. Members speaking in the debate in 1978 hoped that this would have been achieved by the end of the first three years—and to explore again the possibilities of becoming financially independent of Government. But the Government have not assumed any commitment to support the agency with public funds indefinitely.
It is now up to the agency, with this renewed but modified mandate, to prove that it can play a fully constructive job-creating role. If it can, no doubt others will recognise its worth and provide the means to enable it to continue. Government pump priming will then have fulfilled its objective, and I wish it well.

Mr. Les Huckfield: The Opposition welcome the Government's introduction of the order. We welcome also the chance perhaps to have the first debate or the first real discussion on co-operatives that we have had for a long time in the House, although we shall not presume on your generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will do our best to stay within the bounds of order.
I welcome the personal contribution made by the Minister. I hope that it fits in somewhere within the realms of his party doctrines. Nevertheless, we welcome the sincerity with which he gave his benediction. That sincerity will be echoed from the Opposition Benches.
The Minister was right in saying that the proposal to set up the Co-operative Development Agency emanated from the Labour Party's manifesto at the 1974 general election. The legislation was inaugurated in 1978. That is how the agency was set up. I make no secret of the fact that many

Labour Members at that time wished to see a stronger agency, with perhaps stronger powers, and even loan-granting powers. There was a considerable amount of cross-party support for the introduction of some type of promotional agency.
I hope that all hon. Members will agree that we have watched the development with interest. Since the inauguration of the agency we have witnessed the onset of a considerable number of local authority co-operative development agencies. During that time we have watched with interest the progress of co-operatives such as Meriden, KMES and others under the Industrial Common Ownership Act, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins). Therefore, the Minister was right to say that there had recently been a spate of co-operative activity. It is even referred to as a "growth sector" in the latest draft annual report of the Co-operative Development Agency, which is in the Library.
Under the careful and watchful eye of the chairman, Lord Oram, and his board, the agency has helped to propagate the gospel and the concept of co-operatives. Some in the co-operative movement might have wished the agency to do a little more field work and to concentrate a little less on central promotions. Nevertheless, thanks to the CDA, its promotional activity and the advisory services that it has generously given, the co-operative concept and option are firmly established among the range of options open to a number of organisations and groups of workers in different circumstances. There may still be a feeling in some quarters that the structure and pattern of the CDA are not quite right. However, I pay tribute to it for the promotional and advisory work that it has done. The co-operative option is now firmly established.
The money that the Minister referred to is the maximum that he can give under the existing legislation. We recognise that he has gone to the maximum. He could have gone to less than that. However, he will recognise that the maximum in the 1978 legislation was one of a number of maxima fixed by the Labour Government. The borrowing powers and overall limits in the Iron and Steel Act and the Industry Act of the Labour Government have been increased, but the powers and limits in this legislation have not been. Therefore, I am sure that the Minister will accept that, although he is right to say that he has gone to the maximum, £200,000 per annum is not a generous sum. However, it will enable the agency to remain in being, and Lord Oram has said that the new money will at least enable the essential job of the CDA to continue unimpaired.
I understand that Lord Oram's chairmanship will shortly come to an end. Apparently, the assistant directors will no longer be with the CDA. I turn to John Evans and his work on conversions in the private sector. The report states that conversions in the private sector have not been very numerous and that the agency will have to be more selective. I hope that that does not mean that the agency will do fewer conversions. We still regard conversions—particularly on a voluntary basis—as an essential way of setting up co-operatives.
We should also pay tribute to the work of the other assistant director, Martyn Sloman. He did excellent work in promoting the concept of co-operatives with local authorities and in creating an assessment unit. He has done a valuable service to the co-operative movement.
In setting up a co-operative, one of the most difficult factors with which many financial institutions have to grapple is the lack of a yardstick by which to judge the


potential viability of a particular co-operative. The assessment unit created by Martyn Sloman's team has achieved a great deal in that direction.
On the promotion, education and information side, we understand that there is to be a merging of some functions. Concern exists in the labour movement and the trade union movement over the fact that there has not been more publicity for the many co-operative successes that have taken place. Opposition Members would have welcomed more publicity. We hope that the merging of some of these functions will not mean less publicity.
The Minister paid generous tribute to the co-operative concept. Is it possible that some of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches would not like too much publicity given to these successes? I hope that he endorses the fact that he wants the promotional side of the agency to continue to publicise co-operative successes when and where they occur.
While the promotional organisation and the assessment unit will continue, I should like to know from the Minister how much of the ideological commitment will continue. Some of us have noted with interest the staff who now remain and the staff who have departed. I do not wish to impugn their sincerity. However, those serving on the original CDA came from a number of backgrounds, many of them co-operative backgrounds. Not all now remain. I hope that the ideological commitment, in its slightly modified version, to the wider co-operative movement will continue to exist in the new agency.
The annual report, to be fully published on Friday, extols the virtues of employees' co-operatives holding shares in their firms. That is a new variation on co-operatives for the CDA to promulgate. There has also been talk recently of the concept of job ownership. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will wish to refer to that matter. I have to tell the Minister that there is some suspicion in certain parts of the trade union and labour movement about the kind of co-operatives that the CDA might promote in the future. I have to be candid with the Minister. When his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talks about workers' co-operatives, I feel that they may not be the same kind of workers' co-operatives as might be espoused by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Secretary of State has talked about workers using their redundancy money to start co-operatives. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not espousing the cause of workers co-operatives simply because he wants workers to get a taste of how it feels to be involved in business. That is not the Opposition's motivation for endorsing the co-operative concept.
The report also refers to the innovations of the CDA, particularly in the concept of neighbourhood service co-operatives involving two or three or perhaps a few more unemployed young people, together with full-time workers and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I am glad also that the report refers to the other innovation of the CDA, namely, the enterprise and training workshops. Opposition Members have been critical of some of the YOP schemes that have been operated by the Secretary of State for Employment. Many of my hon. Friends feel that more permanent results would be achieved if a greater share of YOP money were channelled into co-operatives modelled along the lines of the community enterprise programme and the enterprise and training workshops, where youngsters who receive

training in management and development skills can then obtain business experience in using those skills and making products within co-operatives. I welcome the appearance of that step forward in the innovations mentioned in the annual report.
The annual report also mentions that the CDA has had contact with about 95 local authorities. I do want to remind the Minister gently that most of those authorities are Labour-controlled, but he will have to take into account the fact that many will have far more adventurous programmes for co-operatives and will make available more money than the Government have so far provided. They will certainly be watching the actions of the CDA and the Department of Industry.
Apart from the local authorities that have already set up co-operative development agencies, many groups of workers and communities are so desperate that they see the co-operative option as their only salvation, and they will be watching the Department's relationship with the CDA. We shall watch the new CDA with caution, but with sympathy. We wish it well.
Many Labour Members have concluded that even the continuation of the CDA, which we welcome, and more tax and fiscal innovations will probably not be enough to foster the expansion of the co-operative sector that we wish to see.
The Labour Party national executive committee yesterday endorsed a statement that will be put before the party's conference in September. I am letting no secrets out of the bag, because all the details have been published in a discussion document which was the product of a working group of which I was chairman.
We welcome the excellent promotional work of the CDA, favour the creation of a new co-operative investment bank, jointly funded, controlled and operated by the Government and the co-operative movement, want to see an expansion of the role of local authorities and obviously want an expansion of education and training facilities, but we feel that all the expansions and institutional changes will still not be enough.
The discussion document and the statement to be placed before the Labour Party conference proposes that groups of workers in a variety of circumstances should be enabled to go to a new advisory board, which would assess proposals to set up workers' co-operatives and in certain circumstances, after careful consideration, give financial assistance to allow a proposal to proceed. It may also give workers the legal right to turn their enterprise into a workers' co-operative.
That is a new scheme which still has to be approved by the annual conference. At this stage, it is still only a proposal from the NEC and it may invite the response from certain sections of the co-operative movement that the existing institutional framework can cope. I do not entirely disagree with that. A future Labour Government would have to build on, and employ, the facilities, services and organisation of the existing movement as much as possible.
Indeed, I pay tribute to the existing institutions, the work of the Co-operative Bank and the way that the movement has taken the Co-operative Productive Federation to its bosom. I also welcome the work of the new and emerging co-operative sub-committee and the way that the movement has moved apace on the formulation of policies to foster new workers' co-operatives.
What we are saying in the proposal that the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party will put to the conference is that we believe that we must build as much as possible on existing institutions but that something further than the existing institutions may be necessary to bring about the expansion that we wish to see of the co-operative sector. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that we must bear in mind that the size of the co-operative sector in this country is considerably smaller than the size of the co-operative sector in Spain, France and Italy.
I do not wish to dwell on the proposal. It is brand new and needs much discussion. It has been carefully worked out. I do not believe that it will lead to revolutionary transformations overnight. It is a carefully-thought out and carefully-worded mechanism, but, in welcoming what the Minister said, I want to reinforce my conclusion and mention Jenny Thornley's new book "Workers' Co-operative, Jobs and Dreams". In the section on the Co-operative Development Agency she examines the achievements of the voluntary movement and welcomes the work that has been done by the CDA but comes to the conclusion that if we want a more generous expansion of the co-operative sector we must have more involvement from local authorities. We shall probably need more involvement from the Government and from the wider labour and trade union movement.
In that spirit, I welcome the Minister's introduction of the order. We pay tribute to the work that the CDA has done so far. We shall watch it with interest and sympathy. I hope that in a year's time, or less, in the next debate on the co-operative movement, we can watch it with approval too.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am glad that the Government have introduced the order and I welcome the speech that the Minister made in commending it to the House.
The Co-operative Development Agency has undoubtedly done a good job. We must look forward to the time when it is able to provide more and more of its finances from the fees that it charges.
The lesson of a successful co-operative development, as in Mondragon in Spain, is that the more workers feel that they have built up co-operatives from their own resources the more they feel they are in control of them and the more likely they will succeed.
I also believe that it is greatly in the interests of our country to develop as wide a spectrum of different forms of industrial control as possible. Co-operatives should be one form of control. I do not think that anyone believes that they are a total answer to all our industrial problems, but they should be encouraged to spread in the interests of us all.
I want to ask two questions about the order. I am not clear for what period it will apply. I know that it extends the amount available, but from the point of view of keeping the CDA going, it is necessary to know how long the Government envisage its future will be.
Lord Oram is resigning, I believe.

Mr. MacGregor: That is correct.

Mr. Grimond: It is important to know fairly soon who Lord Oram's successor will be. The Government may not be able to announce that tonight, but the House will be interested to know when they hope to do so. The CDA is engaged in advising and promoting many new co-operatives, even now, and continuity is important. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when he can announce the successor to Lord Oram, and how he sees the futue of the CDA. I welcome the order. I believe it to be right. The amount announced is about right. The CDA deserves well of the House. Everyone will wish it good fortune in the future.

Mr. Ted Graham: I speak on behalf of the 14-strong Co-operative Group in Parliament. I am grateful to the Minister for the sympathetic way in which he introduced the order. He rightly said that he is introducing it almost as an honour and as a continuation of the commitment which the former Government made three years ago. A number of hon. Members now in the Chamber were present when that commitment was made. I was present, but because I was a Government Whip I could not speak. I do not intend to make up for that, but that is why I am so pleased to be here tonight.
The Minister has explained that we are making a critical review of the past three years. The Minister gave a fair resume, not only of the problems, but of the achievements. I shall fill out those achievements, but I do not cavil at the manner in which the Minister introduced the order.
My warm welcome is not only for the renewal of the cash but for the renewal of the faith. The Minister has faith that there is a job of work to be done by the agency. I support the generous tribute by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) and the Minister to the members of the agency led by Lord Oram. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton paid particular tribute to the staff, who have had difficulty in fashioning the tools with which they have attempted to carry out their remit.
There are many ways in which a Government can spend the taxpayers' money. They would have to go a long way to get better value for money. An average of £300,000 a year for three years has been spent on the agency. That is probably the best money spent by the present and previous Governments for a long time.
In effect, the Minister is giving a vote of confidence to the concept of the CDA, but, rightly, he made much of the need to refashion and redesign the CDA's emphasis. Co-operative Members and the Co-operative movement are committed to an expansion of the co-operative sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton explained that we are probably more ambitious than Government Members about the expansion of the co-operative sector.
We are concerned to ensure not merely that theestablished co-operative movement survives but that new co-operatives are established. It is crucial that the impetus of the launch of the agency is maintained. We want to give confidence not only that there is continuity of policy but that it is widely believed that the CDA is worth continuing.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said about conversions on a voluntary basis, with which he said that he agreed. He then said something, at which he would expect me to prick up my ears—that there is to be a statement by the national executive committee of the Labour Party concerning the expansion


of the co-operative idea. Neither I nor my co-operative colleagues are privy to anything that will appear in that NEC statement, and we look forward to reading it, particularly as my hon. Friend mentioned a discussion document. He is aware of the strong reservations of what I shall call the established co-operative movement—the co-operative union and the co-operative party—about what is compulsory as opposed to voluntary conversion, or conversion with legal underwriting. I and the Co-operative Group of Members of Parliament look forward to the opportunity of seeing what the document says and to making a contribution, which may not be different from that of the established co-operative movement on the subject in the past.
I take this opportunity to put on record the considerable achievements of the CDA. In 1978 there were 100 industrial and service co-ops, and in 1981 there are 400. Not all of them, of course, are wholly inspired or serviced by the CDA. Many of them exist simply because the CDA was there to give advice and guidance. That is a tremendous achievement.
I echo the generous tribute of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton not only to the CDA but to the work of the Co-operative Bank. To that I would add the Co-operative Union, the industrial common ownership movement, and in particular, the work of local authorities. Like my hon. Friend, I had the opportunity to glance at the draft report of the CDA, which will be published on Friday of this week. I noted paragraph 33, dealing with the range of work that has been done, particularly by local authorities.
I have here two documents which were produced by the CDA, one for the London borough of Haringey, and the other for the London borough of Lewisham. They are a credit to any organisation, in the way in which they give advice and guidance. Sadly, the opportunity to commission more such documents has not been taken up, because local authorities have had limited amounts of money available to them in the past to commission such work.
I want to echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton about the nature of the co-operatives that may emerge in the future, as opposed to those in the past. I take as my text paragraph 4 of the annual report, which says:
There is still amongst those to whom people look for professional advice an almost total ignorance of the co-operative form and its possibilities. Whilst this remains so, the agency cannot feel satisfied that the promotional task confided to it has been sufficiently discharged".
I accept that the Minister wants to have men on the new board who have managerial skills and experience, and I do not quibble with the importance that he attaches to the need to instil proper commercial criteria into all considerations in the future.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that there are such things as co-operative ethic and co-operative ethos. We want more businesses, but besides being successful they must be businesses with a difference. The whole raison d'etre of the co-operative, as distinct from the State or the private, is that it is different. The Minister should not simply create more small businesses. The co-operative is a small business and there is a desperate need for more of them. There is a need to ensure that a co-operative is

a co-operative is a co-operative. We do that by ensuring that there are men on the board and people on the staff of the CDA who will ensure that that happens.
It is right that advice is given by the small firms service and by others. I am sure that the Minister will have noted the manner in which The Daily Telegraph, on 25 June, dealt with his two press releases nos. 127 and 128. No. 127 dealt with the small firms service and no. 128 with the co-operative development agency. It said:
The Government have decided that the agency should abandon its role as a business adviser to co-operatives and feel that the functions can be handled better by experienced industrialists recruited by the Government's small firms service.
I hope that the Minister is not saying that it is proper to divulge the commercial advice and guidance within the CDA. The Government need to use as many agencies as possible, one of which is the CDA. There are many others. It is crucial that the CDA has the opportunity not only to give business advice, but to keep in touch with the real world, namely, existing co-operatives and businesses.
We need sound business criteria. We must also have co-operatives whose employees are clear about what they have been converted to or what they are about to start. They need to recognise the significance of a common fund of capital. They need to understand what is meant by democratic control and employee participation. They need to accept the concept in a co-operative of a fixed rate of interest and the dispersal of the profit or dividend in accordance with loyalty or in some other way. The CDA must continue to give guidance and advice. It is essential that it is not isolated, but seen as one of a wide range of weapons in the armoury of Government.
I warmly welcome the activities which my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton and the Minister saw as highlights in the innovative nature of the CDA in its first period. I especially applaud its initiative in creating the neighbourhood co-operatives and the co-operative training and enterprise workshops. Sufficient has been done in the first three years to say that the CDA has justified the provision of money and the feeling of confidence that there is a role to be played by a central agency.
I hope that the Minister will become as excited as I and my colleagues in the co-operative movement are about the co-operative idea, which has yet to be fully extended and used in the British business scene.
I hope that the renewal of the mandate by the Minister and the Government will be seen by those who are involved—individuals, servants and civil servants as well as those who are involved in other ways—as evidence that the House believes that besides the State and private sectors the co-operative sector is one that should flourish. The co-operative group, the co-operative movement and the co-operative union are grateful for the fact that the next step in extending the co-operative sector has been brought before us.

Mr. MacGregor: As a former Whip myself, I am glad that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) was able to speak about the co-operative movement. I know of his long experience in the movement. I am sure that the House listened to him with great interest.
I was not certain whether the hon. Member was agreeing with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) on the new Labour Party working document. I hesitate to introduce too much of a note of controversy,


because I am sure that we all want to get to bed before too long. I have read quickly the discussion document, especially the paragraph which states:
The key principle of our new approach is quite straightforward.
I have indicated my support for forms of co-operatives as genuine additions to job creation and to new business structures—I agree that there can be a variety—but my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would be firmly opposed to some of the suggestions in the Labour Party's new document. I am sure that this is not too surprising to the hon. Member for Nuneaton. We are concerned about the provision that
workers in a private firm … should have the legislative right…to acquire the assets of the firm.
That is not what we regard as a co-operative movement and that would be strongly opposed by us. In addition, there is the suggestion that financial assistance should be provided by the taxpayer for these purposes.

Mr. Les Huckfield: It is a discussion document. If the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government cares to send the Labour Party his observations on it, it will welcome them. The process that he has described is not as easy, over-night or automatic as he has made it sound. Buxted Chickens in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is a potential co-operative with which we are both familiar. I think that he will agree that that is a potential event that the mechanism that is set out in the discussion document could possibly assist. I am sure that he will agree that there are many ways in which this could achieve an expansion of the co-operative sector. The lack of a yardstick to measure financial viability or lack of previous experience means that new co-operatives are difficult to get going. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with the Labour Party's mechanism, but I hope that he will agree that some new mechanisms are needed.

Mr. MacGregor: I have no doubt that we shall debate these matters more fully on another occasion. I wanted merely to put down a marker on the general issue that the Government, in supporting the extension of the CDA, did not have in mind anything along the lines of legislative right for workers to take over the assets of a firm and to receive taxpayers' money to do so. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am very familiar with developments at Buxted Chickens. I have been trying to help the co-operative in a number of practical ways. I say positively—this was made clear during the 1978 debate—that it would not be our intention or wish that the co-operatives that we are trying to encourage through the CDA should have subsidies or financial advantages given to them that are not made available to small businesses or other business organisations in the private sector. That is not part of our policy.
I think that it is better not to go into the full details of Buxted Chickens during this debate. I am not suggesting that anything that is recommended on the main lines set out in the working document would be appropriate for Buxted Chickens.
I shall respond quickly to the points which were put directly to me. The hon. Member for Nuneaton said that the borrowing powers and limits had not been increased, although that has been done in some other legislation during this Parliament. The simple reason for that is that

we judge that the amounts which I have announced tonight and which the Government are considering as a maximum—£200,000 a year is the maximum for the CDA—are right for the tasks which it must now set about. As it is intended that it should be self-financing within a reasonable period, it did not seem to us to require new legislation to give higher borrowing powers or higher limits. I made it clear that it is our belief and intention that the CDA should be able to fulfil its functions within the terms of what, I hope, we will agree on tonight.
Secondly, the hon. Member made a point about there being insufficient publicity for co-operative successes. That struck a chord with me in a wider context because one of the things which I frequently wish would happen more often in current circumstances is that more publicity would be given to the large number of small businesses and business start ups which I know are succeeding. This is not a question of lack of effort, but it is often difficult in this country to get enough concentration on our successes. Too often, we tend to concentrate on the things that are going wrong—except perhaps in a successful Test Match. Normally, it is difficult, when firms are doing well, to get the same attention drawn to them—I include co-operatives in this—as to those which are running into difficulties. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member's point, and I hope that he will join with me in recognising that many small businesses are doing extremely well at present, often also in export markets.
The hon. Member then asked whether the CDA should continue to have an ideological commitment to co-operatives. It is clear that we are not proposing any change in the Act in relation to co-operative principles or assisting co-operatives to set up. There is, of course, no single pattern for co-operatives. It will be a matter for the board to decide exactly which directions it wishes to move in in the next few years, just as, as the hon. Member says, if the structure and pattern of the CDA is not yet right, that, too, will be a matter for the board to direct and sort out. No doubt there are a variety of motivations. It is clear that my interest in co-operatives and the reason why I approach that are different from the hon. Member's. Therefore, there are a variety of motivations in looking at co-operatives and a variety of vehicles. I welcome the prospect of financial participation, which the hon. Member tended to push on one side. He will be aware from what I said earlier that I find that an attractive approach, in terms of getting the wider capital ownership in the community, which Conservative Members seek.
I do not apologise for my emphasis in my opening remarks on the business role and the creation of jobs and economic activity. After all, the co-operative movement and the Co-operative Bank, to which the hon. Member fairly paid tribute, would not have succeeded without it. However, that is not to say that the co-operative ethos which the hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned is not part of what the CDA is about.
I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) for what I have announced. He made two specific points to me. With regard to the term, he will know that I have said that the maximum will be £200,000 a year and that the total figure is £600,000. That means that is likely to be up to three years, although I said that we would like to keep progress under review. One of the important points is the extent to which the CDA succeeds in becoming self-financing. I would not like to make a clear statement tonight on exactly


what the fund will be over succeeding years. There is some indication at least that we would be looking at a period of up to three years.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the new chairman, I fully understand the desirability of moving ahead now on that. I am obliged to consult widely on the appointment of the chairman and of the board—the appointment of the chairman is critical. I felt it right to obtain the approval of the House to the order before consultation. I do not wish to make an announcement. I genuinely wish to undertake consultations as this is an important appointment, which we must get right. I therefore accept the urgency of the task of going out to consultation on the question of a chairman.
I did not intend to suggest that it would be proper completely to divorce commercial advice and guidance from the CDA. A lot of the business advice and guidance to co-operatives, as to other small and growing businesses, can come from other sources, but I am not suggesting for a moment that that should not be part of the CDA's activity.
We have had a useful debate. I hope that hon. Members are in agreement with the order, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Co-operative Development Agency (Grants) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Highlands and Islands Shipping Services

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Roderick Cunningham (Scalpay) Limited, which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): It may be for the convenience of the House if with this we take the following motions:
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Northern Shipping and Trading Company (Helmsdale) Limited, which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and William Dennison (Shapinsay) Limited, which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.

Mr. Rifkind: As right hon. and hon. Members will recall, I sought approval at the beginning of this year for a series of draft undertakings with a number of bulk shipping operators. On the West Coast we wished to assist Glenlight Shipping Ltd., and in Orkney and Shetland the shippers Hay and Company Ltd. of Lerwick, and Shetland Line Ltd. Since receiving the approval of the House in January for those undertakings, the Government have been assisting the operators concerned by providing for percentage reductions on their normal tariffs. For 1981–82, the rebates allowed on traffic with Orkney and Shetland are 12½ per cent. on goods going north into the islands and 45 per cent. on goods going south out of the islands. On the West Coast we have given a uniform rebate of 25 per cent. on all traffic.
The three undertakings now before the House arise from approaches made to the Government by the right hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) following our previous debate and are designed to bring the companies concerned within the tariff reduction schemes which we have developed for freight operations. These arise, of course, from our clear commitments to the survival and prosperity of the Scottish island communities and acceptance of the importance of sea freight costs to the islands.
In the case of Northern Shipping and Trading and the Kirkwall-based firm of Dennison, the main traffic to be assisted will be bulk cargoes into Orkney, and we propose to apply to them the 12½ per cent. or 45 per cent. rates already mentioned, which differentiate between north and south-bound traffic. The relevant undertakings are similar except for clauses 1 and 4. Clause 1 is cast more widely for Dennison in that it refers to the Highlands and Islands. While we do not propose at the present time to grant assistance on services other than those to Orkney and Shetland, this formulation will allow us the flexibility to consider further—at the company's request—the possibility of assisting shipments from East Coast ports to the West Coast islands. The Dennison clause 4 also differs and, as with the undertaking in force with Hay and Company of Shetland, is designed to ensure that any benefit which the company derives from the subsidised carriage of its own merchandise is passed on to the consumer.
The undertaking with Cunningham of Scalpay is cast in precisely the same terms as that with Dennison. We


propose to institute a uniform rebate of 25 per cent. to bring this company into line with Glenlight Shipping Company. This will affect its rates on the West Coast and will be particularly important in the carriage of Calor gas, which is almost entirely carried in Cunningham vessels.
I should also like to draw attention to the fact that we propose to provide interim assistance to Hugh Carmichael, who operates a small West Coast puffer out of Mull. Because this assistance is less than £10,000, it does not require the approval of the House. This assistance will allow the 25 per cent. reduction rate to be available on this company's services. Discussions have also taken place with one other operator, J. and A. Gardner, but for the moment we are unable to propose any assistance as it presently falls outside the scope of the Act because the bulk of its services fall outwith the Highlands and Islands area. I have, however, asked for further discussions to take place.
I shall not take up the time of the House with a rehearsal of the advantages of the tariff reduction scheme, which is becoming increasingly well known among the island communities. Suffice to say that the subsidy is directed towards the users of a service rather than to the shipping operator and that it will be clear to each customer on his invoice how much assistance has been granted. The cost of these proposals to the Exchequer, assuming a start date of no later than 1 September, will be about £70,000 for the rest of this financial year and around £120,000 in a full year. This cost is made up from estimates of the full year cost of assistance of £50,000 to Dennison, £15,000 to Northern Shipping and £55,000 to Cunningham. The cost will be met out of existing public expenditure provision. In deciding to extend the scheme to cover these additional operators, we have been guided by a desire both to spread the benefits of the scheme throughout the islands and to ensure that established operators may compete on an equal basis
I know that there is widespread support in the House for measures that will prove of direct benefit to the Islands. Accordingly, I commend the draft undertakings to the House for its approval.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I think that this will be a comparatively brief debate. Certainly it would be churlish of the Opposition not to say that we welcome the assistance given to these undertakings, or, more specifically, to the users of them, in the Highlands and particularly in the Islands.
In a sense, however, I regret that the debate is taking place at this particular time. We know that before the House rises at the end of next week there is to be a statement—I presume that it will be in the form of a written answer—in which the Government will finally reveal all on the subject of the road equivalent tariff, as we were told last night in the debate on the far more contentious matter of the transfer of subsidy from Caledonian MacBrayne to Western Ferries on the Gourock-Dunoon run. We have been awaiting that statement for a long time.
It is unfortunate that we are considering these undertakings at a time when it is still not clear—and it will not be clear until we know the Government's final intention on the matter—whether they are bridging

arrangements until some variation on the road equivalent tariff is introduced, or whether RET will be quietly buried—or, to use a more appropriate expression, dropped overboard—and these ad hoc arrangements will become semi-permanent and be regarded as the Government's final solution to the problem of shipping services to the Western Isles and the Islands generally.
The road equivalent tariff was a manifesto commitment whistled up by the Conservatives to buttress the rather thin case that they were putting to the electorate. Since then, it has clearly been causing interminable trouble. The pain of actually trying to find some workable scheme is acute, and we have waited a long time since the promise that there would be an answer to the consultations early this year.
Frankly, I should have preferred it if the Government had been able to say something about RET tonight, or, if that was too difficult, if they had arranged for the statement on it to be made before this debate, so that the permanence and suitability of these schemes could be measured and judged against the final shape of the RET solution, if that is what is to emerge.
This matter arose at Question Time on 15 July. One of the few points to come out of that exchange was when the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) expressed the wish that when we knew whether it was to be the RET solution, or otherwise, there should be a debate upon it. The Secretary of State hurried, as he often does on such occasions, to agree—no doubt he was glad to find something with which he could agree—that a debate would be a splendid idea.
As a written question on the subject is likely to be planted on the last possible day, at a time when it will be impossible to have a debate before the House rises for the Summer Recess, it will probably be October or November before we have any opportunity to discuss that statement. I regret that. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will therefore say a few words about what arrangements he will be making for a debate, when it will take place and whether he envisages it being on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee, and in what format. Clearly, while I accept with great regret that a debate is probably impracticable before the autumn, we shall certainly want an opportunity to look very closely at how the Government are implementing their manifesto pledge, even though it has since been somewhat reinterpreted by the Under-Secretary of State as moving towards the principle of RET.

Mr. Rifkind: That is not so.

Mr. Dewar: I thought that the manifesto was more definite. I take the Minister's word for it that he was parroting the words of holy writ. In any event, we shall be anxious to know what that means at the end of the day.
We have always had doubts about a rigid application of the RET formula. There are obvious problems in accommodating the longer distances to the more remote islands which may come badly out of some possible equations. I am still suspicious of the idea that the scheme should be abandoned. We cannot debate it at length, because we do not have the necessary information, although it is relevant to the orders. The Minister owes us some words about the Government's intentions in terms of programme and debate.
We welcome the undertakings so far as they go, but there is one small point of detail that I want to raise. It may


be a revision of the reduction in tariffs. The Minister referred to 12½ per cent. on freight moving northwards and 45 per cent. on traffic going south. In the last debate it was 42½ per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman clear up which is which?
I am worried about the methods used to decide on these tariff reductions. It looks as though we are falling into a general scale which is to be applied throughout the companies affected as to 25 per cent. for the West Coast general trade and the stepped 42½ per cent.—12½ per cent., if that is correct, for Orkney and Shetland. I am not sure of the rationale on which that has been decided, and I do not know whether the Minister can say a great deal more to help us on the matter.
Will any company carrying bulk cargoes in this area be able to get this kind of subsidy on application? That seemed to be the implication of what the Minister said. He ruled out J. and A. Gardner, which is based in Glasgow and has Europe-wide interests, on the ground that it was more widely based than a firm operating in a Highlands and Islands setting.
Are we to assume that any carrier with that specialist interest, the bulk of whose revenue comes from that trade, can now expect to get this level of assistance? My understanding is that until recently Gardner had a substantial trade carrying road metal to the Highlands. I recognise that that must be a very small part of its turnover. However, we seem to be getting to the point of offering these subsidies almost as a matter of course. I do not object to that. I just want to establish whether that is the position.
I notice that none of the draft undertakings has any direct loss subsidy element. There was a direct loss subsidy element in the Glenlight undertaking. I do not know why that should be. I suppose that it may have had particular financial difficulties. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about the criteria. In the first year, Glenlight was offered a direct loss subsidy of £100,000, with the possibility of continuing payments. Will that now be ruled out, or will it be included in future agreements of this kind?
We are interested in seeing a genuine commitment by the Government—indeed, by any Government—to solving the problems of the carriage of freight to the Highlands. We shall monitor carefully how these schemes develop. I am perhaps suspicious about these matters. My worry is that if a firm is subsidised to reduce its fares by 10 per cent. to the customer, in some mysterious way the fares will rise until the customer is paying the same and the 10 per cent. is pocketed as an extra profit margin. I presume that the Government will keep a close watch on that in the annual financial returns that have to be submitted. It would obviously be a rather unfortunate abuse if that were to happen. Having said that, I accept that the idea that the benefit goes to the customer is an important one and one that everyone on the Labour Benches would. endorse.
The Minister said that about £120,000 would be added to the costs in a full year. In 1980–81 the subsidy figure for these shipping services was £1·6 million, and the last clutch of orders added about £150,000 to the total, so that we are now looking at between £1·8 million and £1·9 million. The Minister might care to confirm that those figures are up to date and perhaps give us some idea of the likely costs in 1981–82.
We are glad that something is being done, but we await with great curiosity and with a little caution to see what is likely to come out of the statement which we have so long awaited, and which is being slipped so quietly into circulation in the dying days of the Session.

Mr. J. Grimond: A letter that I received from the Under-Secretary of State announcing these subsidies contained, thought, a rather touching paragraph, which said that he hoped I would congratulate the Government on this matter. So few congratulations are offered to the Government that here I am, at 1.45 am, with my heart wrung by the appeal to my better nature to congratulate the Minister, which I heartily do. It is 'very welcome and it may be a small crumb of satisfaction to the Government to have it confirmed that someone is pleased with something they do. I welcome it, and it will be of help to my constituents.
I am glad that the Government are extending the subsidies to small firms, because these are important, particularly in regard to bulk cargoes. I also welcome the fact that the subsidy will go to the users, to the consumers or to their shippers, as it may be. That will be a definite help to my constituency. I repeat my gratitude to the Government.
I cannot let the question of road equivalent tariff—RET—pass unmentioned. The Secretary of State seemed to express a hope that he would make an announcement in time for some form of discussion of his decision concerning RET before we rose for the holidays. That seems to be a declining possibility. I want to put once more on record my view about RET. The Orkney Island council is strongly in favour of it. I quite see the council 's point. It is a definite proposal—the projection of the old plea that the sea routes to the islands should be treated as main roads. But other island councils and island communities will not come out so well and are much more doubtful about it.
I do not really mind how the help is given. I should like it to be given as simply as possible. I have come to the conclusion that the simplest way may be to give a straightforward subsidy on the lines of these orders, without a complicated calculation on the road equivalent tariff. That is the simplest way of helping the freight charges to the islands. Therefore, if the Government come to the conclusion that they should go forward on this line, I shall have no objection to it. But I hope they will come to a decision soon, not because they have been ungenerous—they have been rather generous about help to the Islands—but because it is a continuing source of anxiety.
The Government need not be told again that it is the greatest handicap to the Islands that they have to pay such enormous freight charges. As the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and I have said, another way would be to reduce the excise duty on petrol and oil. That would be a great help to transport. It would be simple to do and could easily be monitored. Whatever happens, I hope that the Government will tell us a little more tonight than they did last night. I hope that the Minister will indicate when the Government hope to make an announcement and how it is to be discussed. I suppose that the Scottish Grand Committee could be reconvened. That is probably not outside the bounds of order. However, the island communities would like to think that Parliament


will discuss the proposal when it is announced. They would like to think that the Government are committed to making an announcement, at least before the Session ends.
With those few words about RET, I welcome these draft undertakings. I am grateful for the help given and I hope that the Government will tell us a little more about their general policy on assistance to freight tonight, or soon.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I, too, welcome the draft undertakings. I am particularly relieved and pleased that my constituent, Roderick Cunningham (Scalpay) Limited, has been included in the arrangements for aid to shipping. The firm operates, as most hon. Members will know, from a small island. All shipping companies on the West Coast find it difficult to run economical services. The coasters run by Cunningham's perform an essential service for the West Coast, particularly in the transport of Calor gas.
The subject of road equivalent tariff has been raised. As has been said, the Western Isles Council has expressed certain reservations about the formula. I regret that. However, the Highlands and Islands Development Board has rightly pointed out that certain adjustments and variations can be made within the formula. I hope that that will be borne in mind. Like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), we are not unduly concerned with how things are done, providing that action is taken to assist us in gaining an economical transport system.
In its election address the Conservative Party promised to assist the Scottish Islands. I congratulate it on going a considerable way towards redeeming that promise. The draft undertaking will improve economic and social conditions in the Highlands and Islands. On behalf of my constituents, I thank the Government for that action and welcome it.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the welcome that has been given to these undertakings. After the Liberal Party voted with the Government on the Western Ferries undertaking last night, it is almost too much that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) should congratulate us again tonight. We regret only that such things happen when the Chamber is not as full as it might be. Similar thanks go to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) revealed a most unexpected fact by suggesting that, in saying that we are committed to moving towards RET, we have departed from our manifesto commitment. He has revealed something that I had not expected for one moment, namely, that he has not read our election manifesto. Clearly his allegations were based on wild speculation and not on his normal, informed, diligent research, for which he is well known. He has plainly fallen down on that this time.
We intend to make a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess. Obviously, it will not be possible to have a debate before the House rises. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State implied, we accept that it is desirable to have an early debate on the

Government's proposals. I am sure that those responsible for these matters will be able to ensure that this is achieved.

Mr. Dewar: I accept reluctantly that it is impossible to have a debate next week. I presume that the statement will be made in response to a written question—I do not say this pejoratively—requested by the Government. An hon. Member will be invited to table the necessary question. Can the Minister give an assurance that this will be done early next week when there will still be a fair number of hon. Members in the House rather than on 31 July or the eleventh hour and fifty-fifth minute before the Summer Recess? Will the debate take place in the immediate return period in October? Will it be upstairs or on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I can assure him that the Government have no wish to delay any statement on the matter longer than is necessary. The more hon. Members who are still around the House to be made aware of the contents of the statement, the greater the Government's delight. The form of a debate is not a matter for me. It is the sort of issue that might be appropriate for debate in the Grand Committee. The Government have come to no conclusion. Any representations by the Opposition will be taken into account.
The hon. Gentleman asked detailed questions about the undertakings. He wished to know whether the figure of 45 per cent. is correct, and indicated that he seemed to recollect a previous figure of 42½ per cent. No figures of that kind appear in the undertakings themselves. These are matters that the Secretary of State can adjust. These figures have been adjusted and are at present at the level of 45 per cent. The figures are worked out very much on the basis of representations from the island communities.
The percentages were the result of proper consultation with island communities and island councils about the manner in which the sums available should be divided to give the maximum benefit to the island communities. The advice that the Government received and were happy to implement was that the greatest help would be achieved if the bulk of the available resources were concentrated on exports rather than imports. That is how the figures were decided.

Mr. Dewar: It is clearly in the interest of the island communities to get as big a reduction in tariff as possible. The Government, I presume, have a global sum in mind. They may listen to representations about how it should be distributed between, for example, north and south journeys or types of freight. How is the global sum decided? The Government might think that 50 per cent. of a reduction was all that could be afforded. There is no way in which the Government can be persuaded by the island communities to change that view. The Minister should therefore give more details of how total expenditure for each of these firms is arrived at.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a finite limit on the resources available at any one time. The Government have sought to ensure that on the particular charges that would otherwise be charged by the companies concerned there can be a 45 per cent. or 12½ per cent. reduction, depending on whether we are talking about exports or imports, to benefit the economy of the


islands. The hon. Gentleman asked whether any company that applied would be able to receive such a grant. This will depend on two factors. First, it depends on whether a company fits the criteria under which undertakings can be brought forward. Companies have, for example, to operate predominantly within the Highlands and Islands area.
Secondly, it will depend on the resources available in any given year. So far the Government have been able to respond to all the applications made that come within the relevant criteria. We are pleased about what is at this stage a reasonable position.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there was scope for a company to take advantage of the subsidy and therefore put up fares in a manner that it would not otherwise have chosen in the knowledge that the Government will provide the appropriate subsidy. That cannot be done. The undertakings enable the Government to monitor closely the financial situation as it affects an individual company. To be fair to the companies, it must be said that all have accepted that the purpose of the undertakings is not to benefit the companies. None benefits by one penny from the sums being made available. The way in which the subsidies are provided, the undertakings framed and the monitoring carried out will ensure that the island economies benefit, and any indication to the contrary would result in significant changes in how the system operates.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their welcome to the undertakings. As both right hon. Members have said, the Government have already gone a substantial way towards honouring their manifesto commitment, and I have no doubt that further changes in the near future will be seen by those concerned as a further demonstration of the Government's intention to ensure the viability of Scotland's island communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Roderick Cunningham (Scalpay) Limited, which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Northern Shipping and Trading Company (Helmsdale) Limited, which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and William Dennison (Shapinsay) Limited, which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Orders of the Day — Electricity

2 am

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I beg to move,
That the draft North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Compensation for Smelter Deficits) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 7 July, be approved.
Despite the lateness of the hour, it is a pleasure that the Government, who are much criticised for their tight fistedness, are dispensing public funds, first to the Islands, and now to the Highlands.
The draft order is the sixth to be laid under the provisions of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1976. Its purpose is to authorise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to contribute towards reimbursement of the deficit incurred by the North of Scotland hydro-electric board in supplying electricity to the British Aluminium Company's reduction plant at Invergordon.
The order relates to the deficit incurred by the board during the last financial year. Similar orders have been made for each of the past four years, relating in each case to the deficit of the previous year. I am sure that he n. Members are familiar with the background and the details set out in the memorandum that accompanies the order.
Deficits have arisen on the board's smelter accounts because the cost of the electricity supplied for the smelter, which the board purchases from the South of Scotland electricity board, has been consistently higher than the price that it is entitled to charge the company under the terms of the 1968 contract.
The main reason for the gap has been that the Hunterston B station has not produced as much electricity as it was expected to when the contract was drawn up. The reasons for the shortfall in performance are complex. Hunterston B and its companion station at Hinkley Point were prototypes and have suffered from problems of the sort that commonly affect prototypes. Some have been peculiar to nuclear stations and some are peculiar to the AGR design.
It is worth emphasising that many of the problems that have affected the station's output have been in the conventional part of the station, such as the turbo generators. With growing operating experience, most of the problems are progressively being ironed out.
The performances of Hunterston B during 1980–81 marked a substantial improvement on previous years. That was mainly because of the return to service of the second reactor at the station. The accident to that reactor, which affected the smelter deficits in the three previous years, had no effect on the deficit for 1980–81. Similarly, the derating of the station pending examination of the risks of corrosion to boiler tubes, which had affected the deficit in previous years, was not a factor in 1980–81. Laboratory tests have shown that the output of the station need no longer be restricted on that account.
There is one other important factor underlying the proposed compensation payment on which I should comment. The board and the British Aluminium Company are in dispute about the interpretation of a number of points in the 1968 contract. As a result, the company has refused to pay both last year and in several previous years charges under a number of heads for which it has been billed.
Those unpaid charges have increased the size of the deficit in the smelter account and now amount to about £40


million, including financing costs. In March this year the board raised an action against the company in the Court of Session. As hon. Members will appreciate, the amounts at stake in the dispute are very large. In addition to establishing whether the company is liable for the disputed charges, for which it has already been billed, the outcome of the dispute will determine whether it will be liable for similar charges for the remaining 19 years of the contract.
It has become clear, as the board has completed its preparations for the court action, that the dispute may not be finally resolved for some time. I am afraid, therefore, that the hopes that I and others expressed, when last year's compensation order was debated, for a quick resolution of the dispute now seem unlikely to be realised. While the Government are anxious to see the dispute between the company and the board resolved, the Government are not a party to the 1968 contract and are not, therefore, directly involved in the dispute. I made it clear to the board that I hoped that there would be no unnecessary delays on its part during the legal proceedings.
As with previous compensation orders under both Administrations, we have taken the view that no compensation should be paid for the disputed portions of the deficit until liability is firmly established. These disputed charges are retained, therefore, in the smelter accounts, thereby inflating the deficit.
The board's annual report and accounts for 1980–81 show that the deficit at 31 March 1981 amounted to £49 million. As the annex to the memorandum accompanying the order shows, just over £40 million of that represents accumulated disputed charges for 1980–81 and previous years, and a further £250,000 represents a provision for future costs, for which the board is not currently seeking compensation. The remaining £8·7 million is the amount that the Government propose to reimburse to the board under the order. The House will note that that is about half the previous figure.
The calculations underlying the 1980–81 deficits and the amounts specified in the order have been certified by the board's auditors, following the same general principles as those followed in previous years when the accounts were twice examined by independent consultant accountants. As required by the terms of the 1976 Act, the board has been consulted about the drafting of the order, and the Treasury has given its approval. I invite the House to consider the draft order.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I was rather surprised at the Minister's introduction to the order, because the moneys involved and the reason for the introduction of the order can hardly be compared with the previous order introduced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind).
My guess is that the only people who are pleased that the debate is taking place at 2.10 am are the members of the British Aluminium Company. The Minister will be delighted to know that I do not hold him personally responsible for one of the few scandals in Scotland that I do not lay at his door. This is rapidly developing into one of the scandals of our times. If the debate had been held at two o'clock in the afternoon instead of at two o'clock

in the morning there is a distinct possibility that it would have caused more comment than our exchange this morning is likely to cause.
I am concerned that in the memorandum submitted by the Scottish Office to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments there are one or two points about Hunterston B that are at variance with what the Minister said.
As the Minister correctly said, the whole story goes back to a negotiated contract in 1968 when the British Aluminium Company made a contribution to the capital cost of the construction of Hunterston B power station. The other part of the contract was that the British Aluminium Company would receive guaranteed supplies of electricity for its reduction smelter plant at Invergordon until the year 2000.
When the contract was negotiated it was expected that the Hunterston B station would produce a load factor of 78 per cent. in actual output, as distinct from theoretical output. At no time since 1968 has Hunterston B reached a load factor of 78 per cent.
That is where I take issue with the Minister. I understood him to say that the recent tests with reactors show that the problems of recent years are about to be resolved. In the last year design changes have been made at the Hunterston B station. It is now clear, according to the memorandum submitted by the Scottish Office to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, that at no time in the future life of Hunterston B will it reach the 78 per cent. load factor, or anything like it.
The British Aluminium Company is not responsible for that situation. I do not blame the company. However, we must make it clear that the predictions about Hunterston B have not been realised, nor will they be during the lifetime of the Hunterston B station. That has serious implications for the remaining 19 years of the contract negotiated in 1968 between the Scottish Office and the British Aluminium Company.
Most of the losses to which the Minister referred have accrued since 1976, not since 1968. In that time, because Hunterston B has not realised its potential, the North of Scotland hydro-electric board has had to accept responsibility for supplying the British Aluminium Company with much more expensive electricity.
As part of the contract negotiated in 1968, it was agreed that the board would stand any loss incurred. It was also agreed that the other consumers who take their supply from the board would not face increased charges to meet the deficit accrued by British Aluminium.
I say that this is rapidly turning into one of the scandals of our time because a dispute has developed which is now before the courts. British Aluminium is refusing to pay—or disputing—charges to the staggering total of £40,037,898.
All hon. Members receive complaints from constituents about their electricity being disconnected. The amounts involved when the boards decide to disconnect come nowhere near the £40 million involved in the British Aluminium Company case. I can speak for my constituents. They will find it difficult to understand how such massive deficits can be accrued and how disputes can arise about whether a company should pay them. I do not hold the Minister personally responsible, but apparently the State is unable to do much about it.
It would help if the Minister would say which charges are in dispute. Are they for the supply of electricity? Are the electricity charges in dispute? Why is the British


Aluminium Company refusing to pay? I know that the memorandum submitted by the Scottish Office stated that the company says that it does not consider itself to be liable under the terms of its contract. However, it would assist us to make our judgment of the situation if we knew the headings under which the £40,037,898 falls. It is important to have that information, because it is not a matter that will go almost unnoticed.
As I said, and as the Minister said, the contract runs to the year 2000. I have not read the report of last year's debate. Last year was the first year during which I was the Opposition spokesman on this subject, and I have not read what I said last year. However, I am sure that I said that by the year 2000 I could see accumulated losses on the smelter account of the North of Scotland hydro-electric board of about £300 million. The figures that we have been given tonight show that by the year 2000 the accumulated deficit on the smelter account—I agree that we would write it off year upon year—could reach the staggering total of £500 million on this contract, which has another 19 years to run.
I want to ask the Minister whether anything is being done in the Scottich Office, or through the SSEB or the North of Scotland hydro-electric board, to renegotiate the contract. I know that these things are legally difficult, but I am sure that the possibility of renegotiating this contract is being considered. What is happening between the British Aluminium Company and the North of Scotland hydro-electric board is not publicly defensible, and I hazard a guess that many of the electricity consumers of both the SSEB and the North of Scotland board agree with that.
We miss tonight the expert voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who usually attends these debates and contributes his knowledgeable comments on nuclear energy in general. He asked me to say that his absence is due to the fact that he has gone to Edingurgh to give the Lothian region some moral support in its difficult struggle with the Government over the rate support grant.
This debate raises the question of generating policy and also the over-capacity that there is now and has existed for some time. It is not a new phenomenon to have over-capacity in the electricity generating industry. It is not something that has occurred in the past six months, or the past year or even in the past two years. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether studies are taking place in the Scottish Office or through the SSEB on generating policy and over-capacity in the generating industry.
There are several issues in the Scottish Office, some of which I should be out of order to mention and which I freely admit were current when I was a Minister in the Scottish Office, that seem to take an interminable time to resolve. I refer not only to the issue of the smelter account with the North of Scotland hydro-electric board and the dispute with the British Aluminium Company but to a number of examples, such as the Yorkhill hospital, that appear to take year after year to resolve. All that time taxpayers' money is being spent. I would have thought that this Government of all Governments would seek to resolve these matters as speedily and as satisfactorily for the taxpayer as possible.
If there is not some improvement in the position of the British Aluminium Company and the smelter account with the North of Scotland hydro-electric board by the time that we debate the order next year, some arrangement should

be made through the usual channels for a much fuller debate, not only on the order but on the terms of the contract that binds the company and the board for the next 19 years, and also the whole position of Hunterston B, which is an integral part of the problem. It is a growing part of the problem because, according to the Scottish Office memorandum to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, there is no possibility of Hunterston B reaching the 78 per cent. load factor. We do not know its load factor. All we are told is that it will never reach the potential that it was thought to have when it was built. That has serious implications for the tranche of Hunterston B that is set aside to supply the electricity to the smelter plant at Invergordon. If the load factor at Hunterston B is reduced—the Scottish Office says that it is reduced—that tranche must be increased. That plays an important part in the equation that we are discussing tonight.
I know that these are detailed questions. I honestly do not expect the Minister to reply to some of them today I should be grateful if he would write to me about them. I freely admit that since 1968, when the contract was negotiated by the Labour Government, it has been an important issue. The matter is now becoming so out of hand that it is of great public concern. I hope that the Minister will find time to write to me on the questions that he cannot answer today. I hope also that he will consider what I have said about next year if we are again faced with the same order. It would be incumbent on the House to discuss it at a more convenient hour and at much greater length so that the whole background to it could be brought into the open and those concerned about the matter could understand the facts.
Obviously, it is not the Opposition's intention to vote against the order. We realise the importance of what the Minister has said. I look forward to his reply.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) talked about the possibility of another order next year. The best information that I have is that there will be an order of this nature next year, perhaps providing for a similar amount, and that there will be many more such orders, disappointing as that is to those concerned on both sides of the House in view of the large sums involved. It is unlikely that the debate next year will be more wide-ranging and embrace the contract. The best advice that I have from counsel is that the action is likely still to be under consideration this time next year and perhaps beyond that. I am disappointed. During last year's debate on the order I expressed the hope that there would be a speedy conclusion of the issue. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who sits beside the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench, will know that once these matters get into the hands of the lawyers they have a habit of being extremely protracted.
The case is particularly complicated and there is a great deal of money involved. It is an extremely important contract. We are much in the hands of the lawyers on both sides. The contract is a matter for the parties. It is difficult to see how it could be renegotiated unless both parties sought renegotiation. There is no sign that the British Aluminium Company would agree to a renegotiation that would reduce the deficit. As the hon. Gentleman said, the terms of the contract are matters for those who in a previous Labour Government set out on the path of


negotiating a contract in 1968 that would last until the year 2000. As far as one can judge, there it is likely to rest. It seems that it will remain a contract until then.
There is no desire on my part to gloss over the loading factors. It has been pointed out in memoranda on previous orders going back to 1977 that the 78 per cent. load factor is not a practical possibility. It was an over-optimistic estimate at the early stages of the AGR development. The loading has improved during the year in question, but there is no likelihood of its reaching the optimistic targets that were considered a possibility in the early days of the contract.
The hon. Gentleman referred to over-capacity in Scotland. Capacity has to be considered many years in advance. There is more than a decade between the planning of a power station and its being commissioned. When we are considering capacity and power stations in Scotland, we are also required to take into account the types of fuel being used. The Government's policy on nuclear stations is that there will be great benefit to the United Kingdom if we develop more nuclear power stations to replace stations using other fuels that are scarce and more expensive.
I am reluctant to enter into a detailed discussion of a matter that is currently before the courts. The parties are in dispute about charges under a number of heads, of which the most important are the charges for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. I understand that the issue of the company being charged for a share of the eventual cost of the decommissioning of Hunterston B is also one of the items in dispute. There is nothing that I can helpfully add to that without entering into areas that are very much a part of the present action.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Compensation for Smelter Deficits) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 7 July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Severn-Trent Water Authority

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Les Huckfield: Once again I rise, this time to say that I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report and recommendations on the Severn-Trent regional water authority, which serves my constituents and many of those living in the West and East Midlands. I make 'no apology to the House for being a persistent critic of the authority ever since its inception.
This was the third great reorganisation, following the reorganisation of local government and of the National Health Service carried out under the Conservative Government. As they have now admitted that the reorganisation of the NHS was in some ways a mistake, and as I understand that there are also some severe doubts in the Conservative Party about the reorganisation of local government, I hope that the Minister will feel empowered to say that his party and Government are none too happy with the way in which the reorganisation of the water services has turned out.
The report is nothing less than a major challenge and presents a major criticism of the way in which the authority is being run. It underlines and endorses many of the criticisms that I have made as a Member of Parliament over the years. My motivation in seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House is that I am concerned about the way in which the authority appears to have responded to the report. The chairman of the authority, Sir William Dugdale, was quoted in the Coventry Evening Telegraph on 9 June this year as saying that the report had given the authority "8 out of 10". I can only conclude from that quotation that Sir William Dugdale must have been reading a different report, because I interpret the report as having severely criticised the authority.
Apart from that, I feel that I have to put these matters right and that I have to put the record right for my constituents. If they are informed only through the pages of the Nuneaton Evening Tribune, they will receive a wilfully distorted and garbled version of what I say, because that paper, too, has been beguiled and lulled from time to time by the authority's press releases. Fortunately, the better-informed and more discerning citizens of Nuneaton and Bedworth read other local papers and listen to Mercia Sound commercial radio.
At page 4, paragraph 1.7, of the commission's report there is a magnificent list of bodies from which the commission took evidence. There is no sign in that list that the commission took evidence from individual household consumers. That is a point that I shall seek to raise again. I maintain that in the set-up of the authority, as it was created under the Water Act 1973, there is no mechanism so that the consumers' voice can be directly heard. Even the report admits that the local authority representatives on the authority are there only in a most indirect fashion.
I shall take some examples of what the authority has done. Between 1974 and 1979 it increased its internal self-financing ratio from 18 to 51 per cent., thus increasing its reserves from £5·2 million to £82·3 million, a £77·1 million increase. It increased its charges so that they became uniform throughout the whole authority. Because


of direct billing, which was a major innovation in itself, many people lost the advantage not only of rate support grant but of the old rate rebate system. They also lost the advantage of payment by instalment systems. Apart from that, the Severn-Trent water authority introduced and operated a different charging policy from that of all the other regional water authorities. It now proposes to go over to water metering.
I should have thought that those were major innovations. I should have thought that all of those, because they represented major and significant steps forward, were at least deserving of major publicity and a major public relations campaign, instead of which all that we had were a few leaflets and a few explanations on the backs of water bills. If British Rail, the National Bus Company or British Gas had introduced such major changes affecting every one of its consumers in the significant way that water authorities, customers were affected, there would rightly have been a major outcry. No wonder my constituents have been upset and alarmed. I believe that a major promotional exercise ought to have been undertaken to explain exactly what the authority was undertaking.
The commission's report says that the authority has not received many complaints and that it receives an average of only 12 complaints per 1,000 customers. The real number of complaints can be measured by the figure for January of this year, when the authority issued no fewer than 2,600 summonses for non-payment of water rates in North Warwickshire alone. Many of those were simply because many constituents thought that they did not have to pay water rates because their garages did not have any water or drainage connection. I have tried to make that point to the authority, but, unfortunately, even the Nuneaton Evening Tribune cannot understand it. There is a widespread feeling about the authority, but there is no mechanism whereby it can be channelled and heard.
Let us look at some of the individual items of criticism upon which the report concentrates. For example, it says that there is no quantification of results of investment projects, so that it is unable to get a ranking mechanism for capital investment. After all, we are talking about a capital investment programme of £90 million a year. That is explained on page 252, paragraph 10·119.
There is no system for producing integrated long-range plans or medium-term operation plan facilities, and there is no procedure for monitoring the outturn of the corporate plan. Those are major and devastating criticisms.
Pages 127 to 132 represent six solid pages of criticism of the management style and system. The authority does not appear to have a real policy for dealing with leakages. Between 1979 and 1991, the annual water requirement will increase by 18 per cent., but half of that increase will be necessary simply through increased transmission problems. It has been estimated that simply by plugging up the leaks the authority could save £1 million a year.
On top of that, it has not been very good on industrial relations procedures. The unions complain about lack of consultation on outside contractors and their employment. The unions are not consulted on manpower planning. NJCC staff are graded without union consultation. There are three and a half solid pages—pages 153 to 157—of criticism on the authority's manpower planning and efficiency. That is the view of the report, and I maintain that they are severe criticisms.
Page 91, paragraph 5. 13, states:

In an organisation the size of the Severn-Trent Regional Water Authority, with a capital and revenue turnover of £400 million a year, asset lives of over 50 years and a statutory duty to meet future demand, one would ideally expect to find a system of interdependent planning associated with time horizons extending from less than one year for operations to 20 or more years for strategy, from which plans could be produced".
That does not exist, because the central message of the report— I quote from page 287, paragraph 11. 165—is that
It will be apparent from our conclusions on particular matters elsewhere in this report that we believe the Authority to have gone too far in granting autonomy to its Divisions. We believe that generally Headquarters does not, and with the present reporting procedure and lines of responsibility cannot, control and monitor the operation of Divisions to the degree desirable for efficiency and cost savings".
That is another central criticism from the report. No wonder the report admits on page 119, paragraph 5.120, that the
Severn-Trent Water Authority is not in the upper quartile of performers".
I maintain that we have an authority that is too big and which the management cannot control. I believe that those two criticisms, which I have always made, are repeated and endorsed in the report that I have brought before the Minister today.
I also believe that consumers do not really have any mechanism or any way to put their complaints about these matters or in many cases even of knowing that they are taking place. The report says of the 27 of the authority's 48 members who come from local authorities that, although in many cases they do a very sincere job, because the local authority representation is far too indirect they cannot be said to be consumer representatives. That is why the report recommends something like a nationalised industry corporation to run the authority. I am not sure that that is the best way to do it, although the report says that if a nationalised industry corporation were set up about?1 million per year could be saved in administration and running costs.
Incidentally, the Secretary of State may already be thinking of ways to cut the running and administration costs, as the most energetic and voluble of the authority's members have not been replaced, or they have been replaced by more docile counterparts.
My personal remedy would be to split up the authority for the time being. I do not believe that one can run or even try to run a single major water authority stretching from the Welsh border to East Anglia. It is simply too big. it might be nice in theory, but it has not worked out in practice. Even though the chairman has his private aeroplane and there are fast ears standing by and all the administrative paraphernalia, it is simply too big for one management, one chairman and one authority to run. Ultimately, of course, I would prefer the authority, once broken up, to be under a directly elected regional government, but we may have to wait a little time for that.. Even now, I believe that a directly elected element could be injected into the representative structure.
Even if we cannot achieve that straight away and change the way in which the authority is run, I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the way in which he intends to stop what has been christened in the Midlands "The Severn-Trent regional gravy train". If he considers what the report says about subsidised meals, the criticisms about limousines picking up members to go to meetings


and the now legendary figures for car allowances, I am sure that he will agree that something must be done to improve the authority's reputation.
The appendix on page 463 shows that regular car users employed by the authority performing services for the authority with cars of more than 2,000cc receive an allowance that works out at 24·41p per mile. Casual users in class 5 who do up to 3,000 miles per year receive an allowance of—wait for it—41·26p per mile. It is no wonder that the authority is legendary for its car allowances, and it is no wonder also that the report picks up the fact that between 1981 and 1982 the authority has budgeted £2·8 million for car allowances alone. Something must be done about that.
I hope that the Minister will tell us not only what he intends to do following the criticisms of the authority with regard to car allowances. I remind him that when I and many others were criticising the authority about car allowances, at roughly the same time the authority was talking about taking a delegation to see Japanese waterworks on the spot. That is the kind of public relations image that scarcely builds up confidence among the consumers in the authority's area.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell us what he and his Department intend to do in response to the report. The 460 pages of the report represent a fundamental criticism of management style.
My constituents are very upset at the treatment that they have received. I think, for example, of the old lady aged 74 who came to see me just before Christmas. She lives in a warden scheme dwelling in Nuneaton. I shall not mention her name as I have not consulted her first. All that she did was to ask whether she could pay her water rates by instalments. The authority responded by issuing a summons. She owed £22.
If that is the way that the authority treats its customers, it is no wonder that it is out of touch with their real needs. Fortunately, I was able to intervene and do something. But such cases indicate the lack of a mechanism whereby the regional water authority can keep tabs on or get any idea of the real needs of my constituents and its customers.
I hope that the Minister will tell me that the Department of the Environment intends to split up the water authority. I think that it is too big. If it is not to be split up, my constituents and people living in the Midlands will want to know what is likely to happen. We are not prepared to tolerate this kind of dictation. I described the authority as the kingdom of Dugdalia because, under its chairman Sir William Dugdale, it stretches over the vast areas to which I referred.
I warn the Minister—I do not threaten him personally—that I do not intend to give up my fight and that my constituents do not intend to give up their fight. They deserve a better service than they have received hitherto. I hope that the Minister will give us some pointers in that direction tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) for providing this first opportunity to review in some detail the

recommendations made by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its report on the Severn-Trent water authority.
Apart from the individual appraisal conducted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the Severn-Trent authority and the two associated water companies in its area, the report has a wider function. It must be viewed as an appraisal not only of that authority and of how a big company within the water industry operates but of how the Water Act 1973, which set up these structures, operates. It is only right that an appraisal of this kind should be undertaken about eight years after the initiation of the new water structure.
I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman that he was a critic of the new structure that was introduced at that time. But I make no apology for the fact that, in reviewing the report, the Government will want to look closely at the lessons to be learnt from it in relation not only to the Severn-Trent authority but to other major regional water authorities.
The report is substantial. It has 73 recommendations. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be able to tell him how many of the recommendations will be adopted or when the Government's authoritative conclusion should be made in response to the report. However, I assure him that we have already initiated discussions at official level between the Severn-Trent authority and my Department. We hope to have individual discussions with all water authority chairmen and their officials on what they read out of the recommendations. Indeed, we had a meeting today. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services chaired a meeting of all chairmen of regional water authorities at which, among other things, the MMC report was discussed. We take the report seriously as an intelligent and elaborate exposé of one company which can have lessons for each and every one.
We visualise that discussions with the Severn-Trent authority could be continued at a formal and authoritative level, to be concluded in about October this year, with a view to making a final statement to the House fairly early in the new Session in November. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in that way we shall respond fully and in depth, not just in relation to Severn-Trent but in relation to what lessons are to be learnt for the water authorities and the water industry as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman sought in his initial remarks to offset what he thought was perhaps too exaggerated a comment by the chairman of Severn-Trent as to the tenor of the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I take that point. A very substantial and thorough investigation has been carried out, and the undertaking provides water and sewerage services to about 8 million people. It has an annual budget of over £250 million and employs a staff of nearly 11,000. As the hon. Gentleman also knows, the report covered the two private water companies which in their turn serve a further 1½ million people in the Severn-Trent area.
It was a large report, and the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it was significantly critical of a number of very important aspects of the authority's operations. But the chairman was also right in drawing attention to those aspects of the report which are complimentary to the way in which the authority has run its affairs. For example, it comes out of the investigation quite well in regard to the achievements it has made in improvements in water


quality and supply, for its maintenance of that supply, and for the improvement of river water quality through the increased efficiency of treatment of water at reclamation works. It also gave a fairly strong endorsement to its policy of direct billing and the way in which it was carried out, although I accept the hon. Gentleman's view that perhaps more could be done to explain the reason why this was so. But, as he will know, it is important that the authority should move towards having direct contact with the customers in this way and move on from there to consider perhaps optional metering as another way in which customers would be able to pay for their water services, if that is their desire.
There have been matters which have given rise to public criticism, both in the Severn-Trent area and elsewhere. The commission did not consider that the rate of complaint was high, although again the hon. Gentleman feels that the consumer representation and the access to the authority was inadequate, in his view. I think that the representation of the consumer not only within Severn-Trent but within water authorities as a whole is a matter for reappraisal. The Act envisaged that the representations from elected authorities—which form majorities in every regional water authority—would in some way be able to serve the consumer through the districts of which they were representative. The hon. Gentleman would also know that my right hon. Friend last year, in his speech to the conference in October, expressed his concern that this was perhaps not a system that was working sufficiently well. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the question of consumer representation and consumer access to their authorities is one that requires further examination. I have little doubt that that also will take place.
The authority's charging policy was not criticised, although the commission thought that the option of universal metering should be kept under continual review. Sir William Dugdale, the chairman of the authority, in commenting or, the conclusions of the report, has said that
on some points which our critics take up, it is reassuring.
He might have used other expressions which are not acceptable to the hon. Gentleman, but I think he took a fair amount of credit for the fact that, in establishing a very large undertaking within a fairly short period of time, a standard of service has been provided within the Severn-Trent area which is a great tribute to the way in which the authority has tackled its statutory responsibilities.
The chairman clearly recognises that the commission is critical of some very important aspects of the authority's operation. From the discussions that we have had since, it is clear that the chairman and his colleagues on the board of Severn-Trent feel that on the whole the report is entirely constructive and points the way for steps to be taken quickly by the authority to improve its efficiency, and hopefully to reduce its costs.
This brings us to the most important recommendations of the commission's report. These are taken very seriously by the Government. All water authorities have been asked to consider the relevance of the report to their operations and to describe what action is being taken where the commission's recommendations are applicable to them.
The main question, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, is that of management structure, divisions, and the central control of divisions. The hon. Gentleman will know that many water authorities operate similarly large organisations, bit in a different way. Some of them have multi-purpose divisions, some have separate divisions,

some have close central co-ordination and some have divisional responsibilities deferred to smaller groups of people. They are all management styles. It is not sensible to expect a single management style to be extracted from the report and applied, willy-nilly, to authorities as small as the South-West and as large as Thames. However, we understand from the report—as the hon. Gentleman would wish—that there was criticism of the management structure in Severn-Trent and of the way in which the divisions were controlled. As he said, there was also criticism of the planning aspects. Again, these must be and will be put right. We must decide which are the most important recommendations which the authority should implement. We must also decide how it can implement them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Severn-Trent will quickly consider making changes in what it sees as the necessary areas thrown up by the report.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman's specific points. He made a general statement to the effect that the authority had an area that was much too big. He specifically asked that the area should be broken up. The principle behind the original Act was that a water authority should preside over the complete catchment area, from source to the sea. Therefore, in an area such as the Midlands, which has a large catchment area, it is necessary to have an authority of that size to cover that geographical area. The hon. Gentleman knows better than I that the catchment area probably has its centre in Wolverhampton. It catches much of the water resources from the West. The river system, however, flows to the East. Therefore, there is a large geographical area. In itself, that need not be a disadvantage when it comes to running the authority. However, if we want an authority to control water from source to ultimate disposal, a large geographical area is inevitable.
The hon. Gentleman said that the authority was too big and that its structure should be revised. We have taken note of the comments about the costly complex committee structure and the support services. We have also noted that the commission recommends that smaller authorities or boards would provide a more efficient method of running the business. We must consider that most carefully, because it is fundamental to the report.
There was criticism that Severn-Trent was not decentralised enough. The effectiveness of the Severn-Trent management structure and methods is the subject of a public interest recommendation. It is too complex to deal with on our present knowledge, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be one of the most important parts of the formal report that we shall make to the House early in the new Session.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about there being no overall policy for dealing with leakages. I agree that the protection and control of leakage can be very important. Some authorities have tackled this problem seriously and effectively. Clearly, there must be room for improvement in Severn-Trent. The hon. Gentleman was strong about the lack of consumer contact. We are following up that question not only with Severn-Trent but with all the other water authorities. That also involves consumer complaint. As regards rebates and other forms of consumer assistance, we are not dealing with a tax, for which a rebate would be an appropriate arrangement. We are dealing with a vital energy supply. If there are requirements based on social conditions and deprivation, they will be more properly met through the social services system.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Will the Minister have a look at a direct consumer mechanism, whereby consumers can express their complaints to the authority?

Mr. Shaw: I agree to do that. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the precise possibility for Severn-Trent. I agree that there are problems as regards industrial relations. However, I have nothing to add to what the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said on that issue.
The water industry seems to have got itself a bad name over car allowances. I am certain that it should and will put its house—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute to Three o'clock am.